Full text of "Legislative History, Public Law 283 - 82nd Congress, Chapter 108 - 2d Session, S. 1851"

See other formats

Historic, Archive Document

Do not assume content reflects current
scientific knowledge, policies, or practices.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

Public Law 283—82nd Congress
Chapter 108—2nd Session
S. 1851

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Digest of Public Law 283 . 1

Index and Summary of S. 1851. 1

T . ,'-T TM8'"’ ; i

b . : rr • bn: — 8' ?•

,-v- 0 r. ' .;-• - - ; ' n..f •

DIGEST OF PUBLIC LAW 283

AN ACT: Amending the Immigration Act of 1917 to assist the Justice
Department in preventing the illegal entry of aliens (wetbacks) into
the United States and to enable any law-enforcement officer to arrest
aliens illegally in the United States.

INDEX AND SUMMARY OF S. 1851

July 13, 1951 Mr. Kilgore introduced S. 1851 which was referred

to the Committee on the Judiciary. Print of the
bill as introduced.

February 4, 1952 Senate committee reported with amendment, S. 1851.

(S. Rept. 1145). Print of the bill as reported.

February 5, 1952 Senate passed S. 1851 as reported.

February 6, 1952 Referred to the House Committee on Judiciary.

Print of bill as referred.

February 19, 1952 House Committee on Judiciary reported S. 1851

without amendment. (H. Rept. 1377). Print of
the bill as reported.

February 21, 1952 House Rules Committee reported H. Res. 529 for

the consideration of S. 1851. Print of the
House Resolution as reported.

February 25, 1952

Completed general debate on S. 1851.

February 26, 1952

House passed S. 1851 with amendments.

February 28, 1952

Senate conferees appointed.

March 4, 1952
March 10, 1952

March 11, 1952

March 13, 1952

March 20, 1952

House Conferees appointed.

Senator Murray inserted a speech bjr Secretary of
Labor Tobin favoring the bill, S. 1851.

Received Conference Report. (H. Rept. 1505)
Print of report.

Both Houses agreed to the conference report on
S. 1851.

Approved: Public Law 283 - 82nd Congress

£ . AJ CIJ ' ) .T: "I

ox-': fl> • ■ t- "• ',’..£1 ' CIC. r; I ' ■

•to ' r ■ ' x iv. : , •' , ■ ■ r'

£ e )J iso • • • -i0li -f! x si r u j :& so 'y ixrv '

* . V ~ "I : r ' O' ? Z L*>

- ■ ' .

. ! ■ cd i , x-T

xP ’ » ;-mroix' r: l, - 10 ■' - dx -xjoC six

. ••• ; 'x: .-x '

. ■ „ '■■■■. ; : x ‘. ri k f

, o :•-• Jr I ar'd rt r .dps .o'

6f "8t ■ ScPI t <$ Tjifitrxtfe’S

, • • ■ ■: dr : ? 0 p - ; ~x : - x ol ’ rr- x'

, - - ■ - *■’ ■. .r •

>.c ?I ,x T X-

x. ' , / :: x . I oxdIr xx r -- - ,r £dpi xIC viss/id©'?

t «<j

Jx-ilOixO r; llxd ©n\t

« , ti ■

. • .rox-r^i •-£ xo.i. ■ Xoe.- ' SoXoF
, f , I x ,f‘ -o" X ,:S vivnisl

. ■ . .L : x •• '

.' rf ‘ ox -z -■ c o.t•-

S£P- t 6S ri 'ido”
£ PI ,32 vistrr‘9 1 :

.b-drr.'o qs ss^isxn.'' esioH

£'*' I ,

icito*'

' o vxm t " oo©r'x , rod' r.nrr :ct ? ! w •

. . r.- - 1 r -r X ■ - - ”

Sr PI t 0I

Ins -

. " .I'.-'- :-xO Pxiroo ’..F.

. xq- i. Jx .x

S£PI t II

r'o-'sM

. I : .

s?oi ,rx

loos '■

1 ' bed' ~ £>3' ■ l

; ,0S

rfoir'T

82d CONGRESS
1st Session

S. 1851

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

July 13 (legislative day, June 27), 1951

Mr. Kilgore introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred
to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To assist in preventing aliens from entering or remaining in the

United States illegally.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-

2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That section 8 of the Immigration Act of 1917 (8 U. S. C.

4 144) is amended to read as follows:

5 “Sec. 8. (a) Any person, including the owner, oper-

6 ator, pilot, master, commanding officer, agent, or consignee

7 of any means of transportation who—

8 . “(1) brings into or lands in the United States,

9 by any means of transportation or otherwise, or at-
10 tempts, by himself of through another, to bring into

8
9

20
21
22

or land in the United States, by any means of trans¬
portation or otherwise; or

“(2) in furtherance of a violation by himself or
another of paragraph (1) of this subsection, transports
or moves, or attempts to transport or move, within the
United States, by means of transportation or otherwise;
or

“ (3) conceals, harbors, or shields from detection,
or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection
in any place, including any building or any means of
transportation; or

“(4) encourages or induces, or attempts to encour¬
age or induce, either directly or indirectly, the entry into
the United States of,

any alien, including an alien crewman, not duly admitted
by an immigration officer or not lawfully entitled to enter or
to reside within the United States under the terms of this
Act or any other law relating to the immigration or ex¬
pulsion of aliens, shall be guilty of a felony, and upon con¬
viction thereof shall be punished by a fine not exceeding
$2,000 or by imprisonment for a term not exceeding five
years or both for each alien in respect to whom any violation
of this section occurs.

“(b) Any employee of the Immigration and Naturali¬
zation Service authorized and designated under regulations

1 prescribed by the Attorney General, whether individually or

2 as one of a class, shall have power and authority while wear-

3 ing his official insignia or presenting his official credentials

4 and engaged in the performance of his duties in the admin-

5 istration of laws relating to the immigration and expulsion

6 of aliens, to go upon or within any place of employment

7 other than a dwelling, within or upon which he believes there

8 are aliens who are illegally within the United States, for

9 the purpose of interrogating such aliens concerning their
10 right to be or remain in the United States.”

C-4

P-

,-s

►4

ft>

°S.

G ft)

CL pj

ft)

si ^

P o

5-1

E ~

3 55

CD 03

3 2 .

3 w

r 3

S CD
p <J

3- CD

s" 3

CD Q".

(—1 3

3 • P

1 — 1

Cl, CD
^ 3
CO CO

p S“

S’ O

CO 3

CTQ

' 3
JQ

oo
to
L o

* Q

§ a

^ r/j
oq

Calendar No. 1076

8 2d Congress )

SENATE

j Report

2d Session j

( No. 1145

ASSISTING IN PREVENTING ALIENS FROM ENTERING OR
REMAINING IN THE UNITED STATES ILLEGALLY

February 4 (legislative day, January 10), 1952. —Ordered to be printed

Mr. Kilgore, from the Committee, on the Judiciary,

following

)

REPORT

submitted the

[To accompany S. 1851]

The Committee on the Judiciary, to which was referred the bill
(S. 1851) to assist in preventing aliens from entering or remaining in
the United States illegally, having considered the same, reports
favorably thereon with an amendment in the nature of a substitute
and recommends that the bill, as amended, do pass.

AMENDMENT

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert in lieu thereof the
following:

That section 8 of the Immigration Act of 1917 (39 Stat. 880; 8 U. S. C. 144),
is hereby amended to read:

“Sec. 8. (a) Any person, including the owner, operator, pilot, master, com¬
manding officer, agent or consignee of any means of transportation who—

“(1) brings into or lands in the United States, by any means of transporta-
. tion or otherwise, or attempts, by himself or through another, to bring into
or land in the United States, by any means of transportation or otherwise;

“(2) knowing that he is in the United States in violation of law, and
knowing or having reasonable grounds to believe that his last entry into the
United States occurred less than three years prior thereto, transports, or
moves, or attempts to transport or move, within the United States by means
of transportation or otherwise, in furtherance of such violation of law;

“(3) willfully or knowingly conceals, harbors, or shields from detection, or
attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, in any place, including
any building or any means of transportation; or

“(4) willfully or knowingly encourages or induces, or attempts to en¬
courage or induce, either directly or indirectly, the entry into the United
States of anj 7 alien, including an alien seaman, not duly admitted by an
immigration officer or not lawfully entitled to enter or reside within the
United States under the terms of this Act or any other law relating to the
immigration or expulsion of aliens, shall be guilty of a felony, and upon con¬
viction thereof shall be punished by a fine not exceeding $2,000 or by imprison¬
ment for a term not exceeding five years, or both, for each alien in respect to
whom any violation of this subsection occurs: Provided-, however, That for
the purposes of this section, employment (including the usual and normal

PREVENTING ILLEGAL ENTRY' OF ALIENS

practices incident to employment) shall not be deemed to constitute har¬
boring.

“(b) No officer or person shall have authority to make any arrest for a violation
of any provision of this section except officers and employees of the United States
Immigration and Naturalization Service designated by the Attorney General,
either individually or as a member of a class, and all other officers of the United
States whose duty it is to enforce criminal laws.

“(c) When the Attorney General or any district director or any assistant dis¬
trict director of the Immigration and Naturalization Service has information
indicating a reasonable probability that in any designated lands or other property
aliens are illegally within the United States, he may issue his warrant authorizing
the immigration officer named therein to go upon or within such designated lands
or other property other than a dwelling in which the warrant states there may be
aliens illegally within the United States, for the purpose of interrogating such
aliens concerning their right to enter or to be or remain in the United States.
Such warrant shall state therein the time of day or night for its use and the
period of its validity which in no case shall be for more than thirty days.”

Sec. 2. The last proviso to the paragraph headed “Bureau of Immigration” in
title IV of the Act of February 27, 1925 (43 Stat. 1049; 8 U. S. C. 110), as amended
by the Act of August 7, 1946 (60 Stat. 865), is hereby further amended so that
clause numbered (2) shall read:

“(2) within a reasonable distance from any external boundary of the
United States, to board and search for aliens any vessel within the territorir
waters of the United States and any railway car, aircraft, conveyance, c
vehicle, and within a distance of twenty-five miles from any such external
boundary to have access to private lands, but not dwellings, for the purpose
of patrolling the border to prevent the illegal entry of aliens into the United
States, and”

PURPOSE OF THE BILL

The purpose of the bill, as amended, is to overcome a deficiency in
the present law by making it an offense to harbor or conceal aliens
who have entered this country illegally, and to strengthen the law
generally in preventing aliens from entering or remaining in the
United States illegally.

STATEMENT

While section 8 of the Immigration Act of 1917 (8 U. S. C. 144),
purports to make it an offense to harbor or conceal aliens who have
entered this country illegally, the Supreme Court in United States v.
Evans (333 U. S. 483), held that the existing statute does not provide
a penalty for such an offense. The instant bill, as amended, corrects
this deficiency and provides upon conviction a fine not exceeding
$2,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years, or both.

The bill as initially introduced, also provided that any—

employee of the Immigration and Naturalization Service authorized and
designated under regulations prescribed by the Attorney General, whether
individually or as one of a class, shall have power and authority while wearing
his official insignia or presenting his official credentials and engaged in the per¬
formance of his duties in the administration of laws relating to the immigration
and expulsion of aliens, to go upon or within any place of employment other than
a dwelling within or upon which he believes there are aliens who are illegally
within the United States, for the purpose of interrogating such aliens concerning
their right to be or remain in the United States.

The bill, as amended, substitutes for the above-quoted language
of the bill as initially introduced an administrative search warrant
procedure which reads as follows:

PREVENTING ILLEGAL ENTRY OF ALIENS

immigration officer named therein to go upon or within such designated lands or
other property other than a dwelling in which the warrant states there may be
aliens illegally within the United States, for the purpose of interrogating such
aliens concerning their right, to enter or to be or remain in the United States.
Such warrant shall state therein the time of day or night for its use and the period
of its validity which in no case shall be for more than thirty days.

It is the intention of the committee that there shall not be more
than one assistant district director in any district who may issue ad¬
ministrative warrants. On the Mexican border where there are three
districts of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, there will be
three district directors and three assistant district directors who will
be authorized to issue administrative warrants, making a total of six
officials who will be so authorized. It is felt that the administrative
search warrant procedure as provided in the bill will be conducive to
effective enforcement of the immigration laws but will at the same
time safeguard the rights of the property owners.

The bill, as amended, also strengthens the enforcement procedures
of the Immigration and Naturalization Service by amending present
'aw so that enforcement officers may, within a distance of 25 miles
irom any external boundary of the United States, have access to
private lands but not dwellings for the purpose of patrolling the border
to prevent the illegal entry of aliens into the United States.

The bill, as amended, also provides that employment (including
the usual and normal practices incident to employment) of an alien
illegally in the United States shall not be deemed to constitute harbor¬
ing. It is the intention of the committee that this will not, however,
preclude prosecution of an employer who violates other provisions of
the act.

The committee, after consideration of all of the facts, is of the
opinion that the bill (S. 1851), as amended, should be enacted.

CHANGES IN THE PRESENT LAW

In compliance with subsection (4) of rule XXIX of the Standing
Rules of the Senate, changes in existing law made by the bill, as
reported, are shown in the following parallel tables (existing law is
shown in one column; proposed law is shown in the parallel column):

Existing Law

BRINGING IN OR HARBORING OR CON¬
CEALING CERTAIN ALIENS; PENALTY

Proposed Law

That section 8 of the Immigration
Act of 1917 (39 Stat. 880; 8 U. S. C.
144), is hereby amended to read:

“Sec. 8. (a) Any person, including
the owner, operator, pilot, master,
commanding officer, agent or consignee
of any means of transportation who—■
“(1) brings into or lands in the
United States, by any means of
transportation or otherwise, or at¬
tempts, by himself or through
another, to bring into or land in
the United States, by any means
of transportation or otherwise;

“(2) knowing that he is in the
United States in violation of law,
and knowing or having reasonable
grounds to believe that his last
entry into the United States oc-

PREVENTING ILLEGAL ENTRY OF ALIENS

Existing Law

Act, shall be deemed guilty of a mis¬
demeanor, and upon conviction thereof
shall be punished by a fine not exceed¬
ing $2,000 and by imprisonment for a
term not exceeding five years, for each
and every alien so landed or brought in
or attempted to be landed or brought in.

Proposed Law

curred less than three years prior
thereto, transports, or moves, or
attempts to transport or move,
within the United States by means
of transportation or otherwise, in
furtherance of such violation of law;

“(3) wilfully or knowingly con¬
ceals, harbors, or shields from de¬
tection, or attempts to conceal,
harbor, or shield from detection, in
any place, including any building
or any means of transportation; o'-
“(4) willfully or knowingly en¬
courages or induces, or attempts to
encourage or induce, either directly
or indirectly, the entry into the
United States of any alien, in¬
cluding an alien seaman, not duly
admitted by an immigration officer
or not lawfully entitled to enter or
reside within the United State
under the terms of this Act or any
other law relating to the immigra¬
tion or expulsion of aliens, shall
be guilty of a felony, and upon con¬
viction thereof shall be punished
by a fine not exceeding $2,000 or
by imprisonment for a term not
exceeding five years, or both, for
each alien in respect to whom any
violation of this subsection occurs:
Provided, however, That for the
purposes of this section, employ¬
ment (including the usual and
normal practices incident to em¬
ployment) shall not be deemed to
constitute harboring.

“(b) No officer or person shall have
authority to make any arrest for a
violation of any provision of this section
except officers and employees of the
United States Immigration and Natur¬
alization Service designated by the
Attorney General, either individually
or as a member of a class, and all other
officers of the United States whose dut
it is to enforce criminal laws.

“(c) When the Attorney General or
any district director or any assistant
district director of the Immigration and
Naturalization Service has information
indicating a reasonable probability that
in any designated lands or other prop¬
erty aliens are illegally within the
United States, he may issue his warrant
authorizing the immigration officer
named therein to go upon or within such
designated lands or other property other
than a dwelling in which the warrant
states there may be aliens illegally'
within the United States, for the pur¬
pose of interrogating such aliens concern¬
ing their right to enter or to be or
remain in the United States. Such
warrant shall state therein the time of

PREVENTING ILLEGAL ENTRY OF ALIENS

Existing Law

(ACT APPROVED AUGUST 7, 1946 (60

STAT. 865; 8 U. S. C. 110)) (AMENDING
THE ACT OF FEBRUARY 27, 1925)

Any employee of the Immigration and
Naturalization Service authorized so to
do under regulations prescribed by the
Commissioner of Immigration and
Naturalization with the approval of
the Attorney General, shall have power
without warrant (1) * * * (2) to

board and search for aliens any vessel
within the territorial waters of the
United States, railway car, aircraft,
conveyance, or vehicle, within a reason¬
able distance from any external bound¬
ary of the United States; and

Proposed Law

day or night for its use and the period
of its validity which in no case shall be
for more than thirty days.”

Sec. 2. The last proviso to the para¬
graph headed “Bureau of Immigration”
in title IV of the Act of February 27,
1925 (43 Stat. 1049; 8 U. S. C. 110), as
amended by the Act of August 7, 1946
(60 Stat. 865), is hereby further
amended so that clause numbered (2)
shall read:

“(2) within a reasonable distance
from any external boundary of the
United States, to board and search
for aliens any vessel within the terri¬
torial waters of the United States
and any railway car, aircraft, con¬
veyance, or vehicle, and within a
distance of twenty-five miles from
any such external boundary to have
access to private lands, but not
dwellings, for the purpose of patrol¬
ling the border to prevent the illegal
entry of aliens into the United
States, and”

82d CONGRESS
2d Session

Calendar No. 1076

S. 1851

[Report No. 1145]

IN THE SENATE 0E THE UNITED STATES

July 13 (legislative day, June 27), 1951

Mr. Kilgore introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred
to the Committee on the Judiciary

February 4 (legislative day, January 10), 1952
Reported by Mr. Kilgore, with an amendment

[Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert the part printed in italic]

A BILL

To assist in preventing aliens from entering or remaining in the

United States illegally.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-

2 fives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That section 8 of the Immigrati o n Act of 1917 -(8 Eh Sr Or

4 1 11) is amended to read as follows --

5 1£ Se Gt 8t -(e)- Any person, inelnding the owner, oper-

6 fttorj pilot, mast e r, commanding o ffi c er, age n tj or co ns ignee

7 of any m e ans of transportation who—

8 ' ■ “ (1) br i n gs into or lands in the United States,

9 by any means of transportation or ot herwis e , or at-
10 tempts, by h i m se lf or t hr o ugh another, to bring into

or land in the Unite d States? by any m e a n s of tr a ns ¬
portation or otherwise? or

“ ( £ ) - in furtherance of a violat io n fey hims e lf or
another of parag r a ph -f4-f of this sub secti o n, tran s p o rts
or moves, or attempts to transp o rt or mov e, w it h in the
Unit e d States, fey mea n s of t ransportation or ot h erw i s e
or

“ (3)- conceals, harbors? or shields from det e ction ?
or att e m pt s to conceal? harbor, or shield from detect io n
in any place? including any budd i ng or any mean s of
transportation; or

“ (1) enc ou ra g e s or i nd uc es ? or attempts to cne o ur
age or induc e , eith e r direetly or i n d i r e ct ly , the e n tr y into
the - Un i t e d States of?

any alien, In c l u d i ng - an ali e n crewman, not duly a d mi t ted
fey an immigrat i on officer or not law f u l l y e n t it l ed to e nter or

f te r esid e within the United States under the terms of this

(

Act or any other law relating to the immigration or ex¬
pulsion of aliens? shall fee guilty of a felony, and u pon con¬
viction t h e r eof shal l fee punished fey a hu e not exc e eding
■ $2 ? 000 or fey im p risonme n t for a term not exceeding five
ye a rs or feoth for each alien in respect to whom any violation
of this section occ u rs .

“ -f b f Any employ e e of the Immigratio n and - Naturali ¬
z a t ion S er vice author i zed and designated under r e gulations

6
7

r 8
9

20
21
22

proscribed by the Atto rney Gen e ral, wheth e r i n div i d u ally or
as one el a c l as s? shall h a v e power and aut hor it y while wean¬
ing bis official insi g n ia or p rese n t in g bis
and engage d in the performanc e ef bis dutie s in the
istration ef laws re l ating te tire imniigratie n and ex p ul s ion
ef aliens? te ge npen er within any p lac e ef employment
other than a dw e lling, - - wit h in er upon whi e h he believes th e re
are al ie ns whe are illegal l y w ithin the United S tates ? for
the p ur p ose ef in t e rr o g ating such ali e ns concerning their
right te be or remain in the United States.”

That section 8 of the Immigration Act of 1917 (39 Stat.
880; 8 U. S. C. 144), is hereby amended to read:

“Sec. 8. (a) Any person, including the owner, operator,
pilot, master, commanding officer, agent, or consignee of ami
means of transportation who —

“(1) brings into or lands in the United States, by
( any means of transportation or otherwise, or attempts, by
himself or through another, to bring into or land in the
United States, by any means of transportation or other-
, wise;

“(2) knowing that he is in the United States in vio¬
lation of law, and knowing or having reasonable grounds
to believe that his last entry into the United States oc¬
curred less than three yeqrs prior thereto, transports, or
moves, or attempts to transport or move, within the United

States by means of transportation or otherwise, in
furtherance of such violation of law;

“(3) willfully or knowingly conceals, harbors, or
shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or
shield from detection, in any place, including any build¬
ing or any means or transportation; or

“(4) willfully or knowingly encourages or induces,
or attempts to encourage or induce, either directly or
indirectly, the entry into the United States of any alien,
including an alien seaman, not duly admitted by an
immigration officer or not lawfully entitled to enter or
reside within the United States under the terms of this
Act or any other law relating to the immigration or
expulsion of aliens, shall be guilty of a felony, and upon
conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine not exceed¬
ing $2,000 or by imprisonment for a term not exceeding
five years, or both, for each alien in respect to whom
any violation of this subsection occurs: Provided, how¬
ever, That for the purposes of this section, employment
(including the usual and normal practices incident to
employment) shall not be deemed to constitute harboring.

nated by the Attorney General, either individually or as
a member of a class, and all other officers of the United
States whose duty it is to enforce criminal laws.

“(c) When the Attorney General or any district director
or any assistant district director of the Immigration and
Naturalization Service has information indicating a reason¬
able probability that in any designated lands or other prop¬
erty aliens are illegally within the United States, he may
issue his warrant authorizing the immigration officer named
therein to go upon or within such designated lands or other
property other than a dwelling in which the warrant states
there may be aliens illegally within the United States, for the
purpose of interrogating such aliens concerning their right to
enter or to be or remain in the United States. Such warrant
shall state therein the time of day or night for its use and the
period of its validity which in no case shall be for more than
thirty days.”

Sec. 2. The last proviso to the paragraph headed
“Bureau of Immigration ” in title IV of the Act of February
27, 1925 (43 Stat. 1049; 8 U. S. C. 110), as amended by
the Act of August 7, 1946 (60 Stat. 865), is hereby further
amended so that clause numbered (2) shall read:

“(2) within a reasonable distance from any external
boundary of the United States, to board and search for
aliens any vessel within the territorial waters of the

1 United States and any railway car, aircraft, convey-

2 ance, or vehicle, and within a distance of twenty-five

3 miles from any such external boundary to have access to

4 private lands, but not dwellings, for the purpose of

5 patrolling the border to prevent the illegal entry of aliens
into the United States, and”.

<x>

(t>

(

OFFICE OF BUDGET AND FINANCE
(For Department Staff Only)

CONGRESSIONAL

PROCEEDINGS

NTEREST TO THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Issued February 5 , 1952
For actions of February 4, 1952
82nd-2nd, To. 17

CONTENTS

Administrative procedures.25

Agricultural exports...... la

Appropriations...32

Auditing...15

Budgeting. »37

c.c.c.;. ..2 9 S

' Commendation.3&

Committee.13

Cotton...6,IS

Electrification, rural.31,35

Expenditures...3°

Farn production. IS

Fats and oils..2S

Foreign affairs, aid.23,33
Forests and forestry .....9

Grain storage.2,S

Labor, farn... 3

Lands... .9,10,21,30

reclamation.4

Loans, farm.19>30

Minerals .7> 21

Monopolies..... . .11

Organization, executive...

Paper..11

Personnel...-5,20,24,26,34

Prices, farm.6

Reports.l6

Loads.. 22

Sheep industry..3

Snail business..12

Soil conservation.32

Taxation. .2S

Territories and

possessions.. 1,15

Transportation. .35

Water utilization.14,27,29

HIGHLIGHTS: Senate connittee employed accounting firm to investigate CCC. House
subcommittee issued report on CCC investigation*. Senate Connittee reported, bill to
assist in preventing wetback entry, gp^TE

ALASKA STATEHOOD,,' Continued debate on S. 50 , to provide for admission of Ala.sk
.nto . the Unioiic A considerable part of the discussion was on the agricultural
mtialities of the Territory, (pp. 76 l—7^•)

CCC Il^TjJSfiJIGATIOlTo The "Daily Digest" states that on February 1 th^/Agriculture
and Forest^ Committee "authorized Senators Eliender a.nd Aiken to^'employ the
accounting of Price Waterhouse & Co» to direct an investigation of the

Sommoditv Credit^CJorporat ion and related matters' 1 (p* d6$)

3 . FARM LABOR. The Judiciary Committee reported with amendment S. 1S51, to a.ssist
in preventing aliens from entering or remaining in' the T J* S. illegally (S.

[ ' Hept. 11*45) (p. 753) * __ .

. This Committee reported wiij^Tput amen&me bo provi5e relief for

the sheen-r aising industry by making special quota immigration visas available
to certain alien sheepherclers (S. Re*H*XLl 5 "l) (p» 753 )*

4. BE CLAM AT I OH.

The Interior and Inst;

Committee reported without amend¬
ment H, E* 239S, to amend the 3?€rnejo reclamation project lav; so as to remove
the requirement that a contract be entered into frith a State agency having the
power to tax personal prg^rty (S. Rent. Il44)(p« 753) •

5. PERSONNEL TRAINING* vEaceivecl from the Civil Service Comm^qion a proposed, bill
to increase the efficiency of the Federal Government by improving the training
of Federal civilian officers and. employees; to Post Office and. Civil Service
Committee Ge'T75l)f

6, COTTON^yRlCES. Received from the S» C. Legislature a request that Congress

fc ee to cotton farmers a minimum price of 40 cents per pound for cotton
’om the 1952 crop (p, 753)*

- 2 -

7» METAL SHORTAGE, Sen, Ferguson claimed that, the International Materials Confer¬
ence is preventing domestf.c industries from gettirg their rightful share of

scarce copper, etco (ppe> 755 “* 6 l)

g. CCC INVESTIGATI OlTo The Agriculture Subcommittee of the Appropriation^ Committee
issued Un unnumbered committee print of a report, "Investigation of Warehousing
Practices^ Commodity Credit Corporation,“ Although the report will not he made
available in the.usual way, the Department has arranged to receive a special
supply from GPOo Copies of the report and the hearings will b^f available in
this office (Ext, 4654, Rru 105A),probably today*

HOUSE

9 . FOREST LAUDS, Parsed without amendment H. R. 4199. to authorize the transfer of
lands from the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Interior, acquired for the
Blue Ridge Parkway; to the Secretary of Agriculture for/national forest purposes

(p. 7^7).

10. RESEARCH LAUDS„ Passed without amendment H. R. 46s6/ authorizing the transfer

of certain lands in the Rpbinson Remount Station, j^ebr,, to the city of Crawfora,
Nebr * (p, 7^7)•

11 . PAPER; MONOPOLIES. The Subcommittee on Study of’ Monopoly Power, Judiciary Com¬

mittee, submitted a report entitled n Pulp n (H. Rept. 505* part II) (p. 793)»

Sk /

12. SMALL BUSINESS, The Small Business Committee submitted a report entitled "Fair

Trade? The Problem of the Issues 1 *' (H. Rept. 1292) (p. 793)-

\ >

13 . COMMITTEE. Rep. Osmers, N, J4, was el'gbted to the Expenditures in Executive

Departments Committee (p» ] 8 l) s

14. WATER UTILIZATION. Passed over without prejudice, on a call of the Consent

Calendar, H, R. 2131, to authorise "the Secretary of Interior to investigate and
report to the Congress on the conservation, development, and utilization of

the water resources of Hawaii (p- 7^4)

15. AUDITING. Received from GAp audit reports on the F lrgi n Islands Corporation

and the Public Housing Administration, fascal year 1951~lH. Docs. 33&T 3397 (p»
792), / \

Id. REPORTS. Received froA GSA a report on contracts negotiated for experimental,
developmental, or research work and for the manufacturing or funishing of sup¬
plies for experimentation, development, research, or test ,(p* 79 2 )-

/ - • ■

17 . REORGANIZATION. Rep. Curtis, Mo., spoke in favor of his bill, H. R. 6364 ,'bo re¬
peal the Reorganization Act of • 1949 (pp. 791~ 2 )•

BILLS INTRODUCED

lg. AGRICULTURAL DEPORTS. S. 2579, by Sen. Eastland, relating to export constrols
on agricultural commodities; to Banking and Currency Committee (p, 75^)* Sen.
Eastland said the purpose of the bill is to "make definite and certain that
whore the Government announces a production goal for a crop and the farmers in-
good faith try to meet the goal and come within 15 percent of the designated
goal, export quotas cannot be invoked." He cited the-1950 and 1951 cotton
crops of examples of the problem involved, (pp. 754-5“)

1952

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE

753

i*lg to the waters of the Arkansas and Red
Rivers and their tributaries; to the Com¬
mittee on Public Works.

-By Mr. SALTONSTALL:

Resolutions of the General Court of the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts; to the
Committee*on the Judiciary;
“Resolution3\relative to an investigation by
the President of the United States for a
complete investigation of criminal acts
against minority groups in the State of
Florida

“Whereas there have been many criminal
acts of violence committed against minority
groups, including the fat^l bombing of Harry
T. Moore, in the State oft. Florida; and
“Whereas such acts of vityence and terror¬
ism constitute a threat to vfte internal order
and security of the United states and an
invasion of the constitutional sights of the
people: Therefore be it

“Resolved , That it is the sense of'the House
of Representatives of the Common-Health of
Massachusetts that the President should
direct all appropriate departments and Agen¬
cies of the United States (1) to conduct a
full and complete investigation of the recehj
series of criminal acts against minorit
groups in the State of Florida, which cul¬
minated with the fatal bombing of Harry T.
Moore, (2) to utilize all means to prosecute
the persons responsible for such criminal
acts, and (3) to take all other steps to
prevent the spread of such acts of violence
and terrorism in order to eliminate the
threat to the internal order and security of
the United States and the invasion of the
constitutional rights of its people caused by
such acts; and be it further

“Resolved , That a copy of these resolutions
be forwarded by the State Secretary to the
President of the United States, and to all
Members of Congress from this Common¬
wealth.”

By Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina:
A concurrent resolution of the Legisla¬
ture of the State of South Carolina; to the
Committee on Agriculture and Forestry;
“Concurrent resolution memorializing Con¬
gress to guarantee to the cotton farmers of
America a minimum price of 40 cents per
pound for cotton from the 1952 cotton
crop

“Whereas the Nation produced a bumper
cotton crop during the year 1951 of approxi¬
mately 15,700,000 bales, and
"Whereas in April of 1951 the price of cot¬
ton was about 43 cents a pound; and
“Whereas the price declined to only 38 cents
a pound in September of the same year, re¬
sulting in a staggering loss to those farmerj
who disposed of their cotton at the lg
figure; and

“Whereas the price has since risen to about
42 cents per pound but too late to helj/those
whose cotton had not been held;

“Whereas the United States Department of
Agriculture is not citing the necessity for
another bumper crop duplicating the produc¬
tion of 1951; and
“Whereas it is greatly fea/ed that another
such crop as that of 1951 will result directly
in another financial loss t6 the farmers, many
of whom are gravely concerned and fear the
advisability of continuing the planting of
cotton; and

“Whereas if these fears crystalize into a
general failure to plant cotton the Nation
and the world Hill be confronted with a se¬
rious shortage of cotton products so greatly
needed foiyour economic stability and our
national security; and

“Whep6as this threat can be diverted and
the danger allayed by definite and positive
action by the Congress of the United States
ncnr by assuring the farmers of America a
minimum price of 40 cents per pound for
/heir 1952 cctton crop: Now, therefore, be it

"Resolved by the house of representatives
(the senate concurring), That Congress be
memorialized to act immediately to divert
what may develop into a crisis and guarantee
to the farmers of America a minimum price
of at least 40 cents per pound for their en¬
tire cotton crop for the year 1952.”

AMENDMENT OF IMMIGRATION LAWS
RELATING TO IMPORTATION OF CER¬
TAIN AGRICULTURAL WORKERS

Mr. LANGER. Mr. President, I pre¬
sent for appropriate reference a letter
from Carl P. Fryhling, State director.
North Dakota State Employment Serv¬
ice, and a resolution adopted by the gov¬
ernor’s State farm labor committee at
the Governor’s office, January 29, 1952,
Eismarck, N. Dak. I ask unanimous
consent that the letter and resolution be
printed in the Record, together with a
list of the names of the governor’s ad¬
visory committee.

There being no objection, the letter
and resolution were referred to the Com¬
mittee on the Judiciary, and ordered to
be printed in the Record, together with
list of the names of the advisory com-
jttee, as follows:

North Dakota
State Employment Service,
'ffismarck, N. Dak., January 31, 1952.
Hon. WfeLIAM Langer,

Senator from North Dakota,

SeMte Office Building,

v Washington, D. C.

Dear Senator Langer: We are enclosing a
resolution adojked by the governor’s State
farm labor committee at their meeting on
January 29, 1952\held at the governor’s
office in Bismarck. \

It was the consensus of the committee
that it is extremely important that the pres¬
ent agreement with Mexico, which provides
for the importation of Mexican nationals
for agricultural work, be extended and that
legislation necessary for the extension of this
agreement be passed by Congrees as soon as
possible.

The committee urges that you'ant favor¬
ably on pending legislation and ao every¬
thing possible to expedite the passage of
favorable legislation.

/Very truly yours,

/ Carl F. Fryhling,

/ State Director. \

Resolution Adopted by North Dakota State
Farm Labor Committee January 29, 1952,
Bismarck, N. Dak.

Whereas planned sugar beet acreage in
North Dakota during 1952 will require ap¬
proximately 3,000 workers for thinning and
blocking; and

Whereas the supply of domestics for this
work will be inadequate and that it will be
necessary to supplement the supply of do¬
mestic workers with Mexican nationals; and
Whereas the present agreement between
the United States and Mexico which pro¬
vides for legal entry of Mexican nationals
into the United States for agricultural work
will expire February 11, 1952, and it being
our understanding that no further agree¬
ment with Mexico will be validated until
such time as present United States immigra¬
tion laws are amended to provide proper en¬
forcement agencies with legal authority to
restrict the traffic of foreigners who gain
illegal entry into the United States: Now,
therefore, be it

Resolved, That the governor’s state farm
labor committee urge the United States
Congress now in session take immediate and
necessary action to amend and clarify sec¬
tion 8 of the Immigration Act of 1917 in or¬

der that there might be proper enforcement
of immigration laws pertaining to the hat¬
boring and/or employment of foreigners.Who
have gained entry into the United States
Illegally.

Governor's Farm Labor Advisory Com¬
mittee: Governor Norman Brunsdale,
Chairman; P. J. Donnelly, President,
North Dakota Farm Bureau, Grafton,
N. Dak.—Alternate: Mr. Albert Sinner,
Casselton, N. Dak.; Math Dahl, Com¬
missioner, Departn/nt of Agriculture
and Labor, CapitopBuilding, Bismarck,
N. Dak.; Glen J. Talbott, President,
North Dakota farmers Union, James¬
town, N. Dak.; John R. McClung, State
Director, Farmers Home Administra¬
tion, Federal Building, Bismarck, N.
Dak.; E. J. Haslerud, Director, North
Dakota Extension Service, State Col¬
lege Station, Fargo, N. Dak.; Brig. Gen.
Hebffi- L. Edwards, Director, Selective
Service System, Fraine Barracks, Bis-
ptfarck, N. Dak.; M. F. Peterson, Super¬
intendent, Department of Public In¬
struction, Capitol Building, Bismarck,
N. Dak.; John E. Kasper, Chairman,
State Committee, PMA, deLendrecie
Building, Fargo, N. Dak.—Alternate:
Mr. John Bruns, State PMA Commit¬
teeman, Fargo, N. Dak.; Carl F. Fryh¬
ling, State Director, North Dakota
State Employment Service, 305%
Broadway, Bismarck, N. Dak.; Arthur
Nelson, Northwood, N. Dak.; Dave M.
Robinson, Coleharbor, N. Dak.

REPORTS OF COMMITTEES

The following reports of committees
were submitted:

By Mr. O’MAHONEY, from the Committee
on Interior and Insular Affairs:

S. J. Res. 20. Joint resolution to provide for
the continuation of operations under certain
mineral leases issued by the respective States
covering submerged lands of the Continental
Shelf, to encourage the continued develop¬
ment of such leases, to provide for the pro¬
tection of the interests of the United States
in the oil and gas deposits of said lands, and
for other purposes; with amendments (Rept.
No. 1143).

By Mr. ANDERSON, from the Committee
on Interior and Insular Affairs:

H. R. 2398. A bill to amend Public Law 848,
Eighty-first Congress, second session; with¬
out amendment (Rept. No. 1144).

By Mr. KILGORE, from the Committee on
the Judiciary:

-srrssr. A bill - assist Tn' preventing
aliens from entering or remaining in the
United States illegally; with an amendment
(Rept. No. 1145).

n y w: McLAim™, Tr am me uafflffl ' imjtf -

on theNJudiciary, without amendment:

S. 119X. A bill for the relief of Demetrius
Alexander\Jordan (Rept. No. 1146);

S. 1637. Abill for the relief of Doreen Iris

1148);

for the relief of Joachim
1149);

amend the Contract Set-
and to abolish the Ap-
ce of Contract Settle-

194'

Neal (Rept.

S. 2150. A
Nemitz (Rept.

S. 2199. A bill
tlement Act of
peal Board of the
ment (Rept. No. 1

S. 2549. A bill to provide relief for the
sheep-raising industry hy making special
quota immigration visas available to certain
alien sheepherders (Rept. No. 1151);

S. 2566. A bill for the reliefNjf Niccolo Lu-
visotti (Rept. No. 1152); and

H. R. 4130. A bill for the relief' of Caroline
Wu (Rept. No. 1153).

By Mi'. McCARRAN, from the Committee
on the Judiciary, with an amendment:

S. 1470. A bill for the relief of Panagiotes
Roumeliotis (Rept. No. 1147);

S. 1833. A bill for the relief of Barbara
Jean Takada (Rept. No. 1154); and

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE February 4

754

S. 2149. A bill to confer Federal Jurisdic¬
tion to prosecute certain common-law
crimes of violence when such crimes are
committed on American airplane in flight
over the high seas or over waters within the
admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the
United States (Rept. No. 1155).

By Mr. SMITH of North Carolina, from
the Committee on the Judiciary:

S. 1331. A bill to further implement the
full faith and credit clause of the Consti¬
tution; with amendments (Rept. No. 1156).

By Mr. O’CONOR, from the Committee on
the Judiciary:

S. 2214. A bill to amend section 709 of title
18 of the United States Code; with an
amendment (Rept. No. 1157).

Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina,
from the Joint Select Committee on the
Disposition of Executive Papers, to which
were referred for examination and rec¬
ommendation six lists of records trans¬
mitted to the Senate by the Archivist of
the United States that appeared to have
no permanent value or historical inter¬
est, submitted reports thereon pursuant
to law.

Bills and joint resolutions were intro¬
duced, read the first time, and, by unani¬
mous consent, the second time, and re¬
ferred as follows:

By Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina:

S. 2574. A bill to authorize the cancella¬
tion, adjustment, and collection of certain
obligations due the United States, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Agri¬
culture and Forestry.

S. 2575. A bill to amend section 604 (b)
of the Classification Act of 1949; to the
Committee on Post Office and Civil Service.

(See the remarks of Mr. Johnston of South
Carolina when he introduced the last above-
mentioned bill, which appear under a sepa¬
rate heading.)

By Mr. HENNINGS:

S. 2576. A bill for the relief of Perry Lee
Vance; and

S. 2577. A bill for the relief of Mikio Abe;
to the Committee on the Judiciary.

S. 2578. A bill to provide veterans’ bene¬
fits for commissioned officers of the Public
Health Service who served on active duty
during World War II and subsequent to
November 11, 1943; to the Committee on
Labor and Public Welfare.

By Mr. EASTLAND:

S. 2579. A bill relating to export controls
on agricultural commodities; to the Commit¬
tee on Banking and Currency.

(See the remarks of Mr. Eastland when he
Introduced the above bill, which appear un¬
der a separate heading.)

By Mr. RUSSELL (by request):

S. 2580. A bill to amend the Dependents
Assistance Act of 1950, to provide punish¬
ment for fraudulent acceptance of benefits
thereunder;

S. 2581. A bill to amend the Army-Navy
Medical Services Corps Act of 1947 (61 Stat.
734) > as amended, so as to authorize the ap¬
pointment of a Chief of the Medical Service
Corps of the Navy/ and for other purposes;
and

S. 2582. A bilj/to authorize and direct the
Secretary of the Army to convey the sand,
gravel, and clay deposits in and on a cer¬
tain tract of parcel of land in Russell County,
Ala., to \y. T. Heard; to the Committee on
Armed Services.

S. 2506. A bill for the relief of certain
meml/ers of the naval service, with respect
to shipments of household effects; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado (for
himself and Mr. Millikin) :

S. 2584. A bill to provide for the establish¬
ment of a Veterans’ Administration domi¬
ciliary facility at Fort Logan, Colo.; to the
Committee on Finance.

By Mr. McKELLAR:

S. 2585. A bill to amend the laws relating
to the construction of Federal-aid highways
to provide for equality of treatment of rail¬
roads and other public utilities with respect
to the cost of relocation of utility facilities
necessitated by the construction of such
highways; to the Committee on Public
Works.

By Mr. MAGNUSON (by request):

S. 2586. A bill for the relief of Kim Dong
Su; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. MOODY:

S. 2587. A bill for the relief of Sebastiano
Bello, Dino Bianchi, Pierino Cicarese, Vin¬
cenzo Dal’Alda, Vittorio De Gasperi, Salva¬
tore Puggioni, Giovanni Battista Volpato,
and Leone Montini; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.

By Mr. LEHMAN:

S. 2588. A bill for the relief of Dulcie Ann
Steinhardt Sherlock; to the Committee on
the Judiciary.

By Mr. SALTONSTALL:

S. J. Res. 126. Joint resolution authorizing
the President of the United States of Amer¬
ica to proclaim October 11 of each year Gen¬
eral Pulaski’s Memorial Day for the observ¬
ance and commemoration of the death of
Brig. Gen. Gasimir Pulaski; to the Commit¬
tee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. MOODY:

S. J. Res. 127. Joint resolution proposing
an amendment to the Constitution of the
United States to grant to citizens of the
United States who have attained the age of
18 the right to vote; to the Committee on
the Judiciary.

(See the remarks of Mr. Moody when he
introduced the above joint resolution, which
appear under a separate heading.)

AMENDMENT OF CLASSIFICATION ACT OF

1949, RELATING TO COMPENSATION OF

CERTAIN EMPLOYEES

Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina.
Mi’. President, I introduce for appropri¬
ate reference a bill to amend section
604 (b) of the Classification Act of 1849.
I ask unanimous consent that a state¬
ment by me explaining the bill be printed
in the Record.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The bill will
be received and appropriately referred,
and, without objection, the statement
will be printed in the Record.

The bill (S. 2575) to amend section
604 (b) of the Classification Act of 1949,
introduced by Mr. Johnston of South
Carolina, was read twice by its title, and
referred to the Committee on Post Of¬
fice and Civil Service.

The statement by Mr. Johnston of
South Carolina is as follows:

Statement by Senator Johnston of
South Carolina

The United States Civil Service Commis¬
sion by order dated August 18, 1951, has pro¬
vided that certain employees in positions
downgraded after said date might continue
to be paid basic compensation but without
additional step increases. The proposed
bill would make continued payment of basic
compensation in such instances mandatory
and would provide for payment of step
Increases to such employees. It would also
afford relief to several groups of downgraded
employees who were exempted from the Com¬
mission order.

The step rates provided for each grade on
the salary schedule were intended to provide
an incentive for improved Derformance. a

partial incentive in recruitment, and com¬
pensation for the increased productivity of
more experienced employes. Each step is
intended to represent a reasonable increase
in the value of the employee to the civil
service, and it is to the interest of the service
that such increases be earned and granted.
Increased employee satisfaction, increased
productivity at lower costs, production with
fewer employees, lessened recruiting and
training costs for replacements, and the
presence of seasoned groups of employees on
whom more responsibility can be placed are
all factors which warrant the increases in
payroll costs involved.' Failures to provide
incentive goals in the way of step increases
for certain groups of employees are not con¬
ducive to employee morale.

Passage of the proposed bill will enable
the various Government agencies to comply
more fully with the spirit and intent of sec¬
tion 9 (b),-of the Selective Service Act of
1948, which provides that a returning serv¬
iceman if still qualified to perform the duties
of his old position must be restored to such
old position or one of like seniority, status,
and pay. Under present procedure an em¬
ployee returning from military service to a
position which has been downgraded is re¬
stored to the grade and pay for 30 days then
is reduced in grade and pay in accordance
with existing regulations. Surely this is not
the reward 'Which an employee returning
from a period of military service, service
which has usually been rendered at a finan¬
cial loss, might reasonably expect from a
just employer.

Failure to provide incentive goals for any
group of employees must necessarily result
in the better qualified of those employees
seeking other positions. For example: the
number of registration officers in the Veter¬
ans’ Administration who have left the Gov¬
ernment since the registration officer posi¬
tion has been downgraded has been alarm¬
ingly high. As new employees not so well
qualified to do the job are employed, the
quality of work tends to deteriorate and more
employees have to be added. Over the long
term the Government instead of reducing
expenses will find that it is burdened with
added expenses.

EXPORT CONTROLS ON AGRICULTURAL
COMMODITIES

Mr. EASTLAND. Mr. President, I in¬
troduce for appropriate reference a bill
relating to export controls on agricul¬
tural commodities. I ask unanimous
consent that I may be permitted to make
a brief statement concerning the bill.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The bill will
be received and appropriately referred,
and, without objection, the Senator from
Mississippi may proceed.

The bill (S. 2579) relating to export
controls on agricultural commodities, in¬
troduced by Mr. Eastland, was read
twice by its title, and referred to the
Committee on Banking and Currency.

Mr. EASTLAND. Mr. President, the
bill which I have introduced amends the
Export Control Act of 1949 which pro-
cides that whenever the production of
any agricultural commodity, during any
marketing year, exceeds 85 percent of
the production goal established for such
commodity by the President or the Sec¬
retary of Agriculture, the authority to
impose export controls shall not be exer¬
cised except to nations designated as un¬
friendly.

The purpose of this amendment is
manifest. I give an outstanding exam¬
ple: The Department of Agriculture, in
1951, asked the cotton farmers to pro¬
duce a 16,000,000-bale cotton crop.

REPORTS ON DISPOSITION OF
EXECUTIVE PAPERS

BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
INTRODUCED

OFFICE OF BUDGET AH) FINANCE
(For Department Staff Only)

CONGRESSIONAL

PROCEEDINGS

THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Issued February 6, 1952

For actions of fsoroary 5.» 195^
82nd-2nd, No. 18

CONTENTS

A.A.Act of 193 C.18

Appropriat ions..7 > f ®

b'.a.e.. 17

Budgeting. . ....10

C.C.C. .. '.2

Comodity exchnngas.S

Cotton. IS

Defense production. .9

Educe tion.lH

lectrif lent ion.......11, 22

Bn or ency controls. .9

I&ncnditures.21

Extension work.. .6

Grain storage. .2

Inn 0 rt controls.19

Labor, farm.1

Lands...5

Legislative procedures...23

Mr ch i nery, farm.16

Minerals. .5

Peanuts..

Personnel.

::::3

Snail Business*..

Taxation,.

.. .16

Transnortation.

Trade, foreign..

....19

Nate r utilization...,

... .12

Wool.3

HIGHLIGHTS? Senate passed Bill to assist in preventing entry of wetbacks. Sen.^
Williams criticized administration of CCC grain storage program. Sen. May-Bank in¬
troduced and. discussed Bill, to extend. Defense, production Act. Sen. Jenner intro¬
duced and discussed Bill to repuire uniform discounts for future and cash markets
on commodity exchanges. Sen. O'Mahoney submitted monograph on program to stimulate
wool production.

ENATE

The Interior and Insular Affairs Committee reported idth^Braendments
te permit the mining, development, and utilization ©f the mineral

Sen, Williams strongly criticized various aspects of admj
CCC grain-storage program and denied that his amendngpfc'liad
interferes! with CCC operations (pp. 826-30) c

3. WOOL PRODUCTION,

stimulate the product 1 '

ioo)(pp. 797-8).

O' Mahoney submitted a monograph rpggfFding a program t«
of domestic wool, which T/£>«<ordered printed as 3. Doc.

1. ALIEN ENTRY, Passed as reported S, I8£l, to strengthen the authority of the

Justice Department in preventing aliens from entering or remaining in the U, 3.
illegally. Sen. Kilgore explained that the bill was largely aimed at the Mexi¬
can "wetback" problem and that the Mexican government was in favor of the bill as
a preliminary to the continuation of the agreement for entry of temporary
laborers from that country, (pp. 802-11, 813-24*) Rejected, 12-69, a Douglas
Is amendment making it a felony to employ an alien illegally in the U. 3, when the
employer had actual or constructive knowledge of the facts (pp. 808-22). Also
rejected a Douglas amendment making it a felony to employ such a person when the
employer had actual knowledge‘ (pp, 822-4)•

4. RICE. Rep. Beckwerth, Te^f^Inserted tables 3 acreage allotments, planted
acreage, prcduction^^a^cl value of the 195® rice crop)'; -fev counties, for the States
cf Arkansas, LjuiSiana, Texas, California, and other producing States (pp, 847-9).

;-2-

' resources, of all ‘^blic lands withdrawn, or reserved for power development
('H. Kept. 1296) (pp. S50”l>.

'G .'EXTENSION WOEK 1 .'-' Rep* “Wickersham, Okla.., Inserted a letter from the Oklahoma

City Milk Producers Association stating that Oklahoma, will receive a reduction
in Federal contributions for extension work "because of the decrea.se. m rural
populations which reduction will result in the displacer.ient of 2'4 assistant-
county agents leading I|-H Cluh work.. The letter asks that Congress take some
action to help in the situation. ‘ (pi 832.)

10 .

COMMERCE APPROPRIATIONS. Received from the President a draft ojf pro-nosed lan¬
guage provision for the fiscal year 1952 for the Commerce Department- (H. Doc.
3^0) (p. 850); to Appropriations Committee.

\ . . ■''/■■

BILLS INTRODUCED

8. " COMMODITY EXCHANGE* Sy 2591 > by Ben. Jenner, to amend section 5 a of the Com¬

modity Exchange Act, so,-p,s -to provide for the same discount on gre.in delivered
against futures cont as in- the case of grain sold in the cash market; -to

Agriculture and Forestry Committee (p® 79°)* Sen. Jenner discussed the pur¬
poses' of the "bill .and inserted an article "by Phil S. Hanna .on the subject (pm.

796-7)- \ n

9. EMERGENCY CONTROLS* S. 259^-» by. Sen. Maybank, 'to extend the provisions of the

Defense Production Act of 19.50, Vs amended, yand the Housing and Rent Act of
1947, as amended; to Banking and Currency Committee (p. 79‘S) • Sen, Ma.yha.nlc
said the hill provides for an extension of the ^programs of material allocatior
price, credit, and rent controls, am the life of the Small Defense Plants,
Administration, 9 and that he is introducing it at this time in order that ‘ v - U'
the Committee may begin hearings. He 7%lso inserted a., summary'of the bill and
discussed it with Sens. Capehart and'Lehsjan. (pp. 79&“9*)

/ \ . • ,

BUDGETING. S 0 2602, by Sen. Hunohrey (for himself and Sens. Benton, Lehman,

Moody, and Murray), and H. R. S44l, by Rep. Roosevelt, N. Y.,_to promote

greater economy in the operations of the Federal Government by providing for a
consolidated cash budget, .a..aeoaration of operating, from capita.! expenditures.,
long-range budget estimates, the scheduling of legislative action on approp¬

riation measures, yea and hay votes on amendments to appropriation measures,

and a Presidential item veto; to Expenditures in Executive Departments Commit¬

tees (pp
Roosevelt

96 , 851 ). Romanics of Sen. Humphrey (p. 79.7) • Remarks of Rep.

* 7 -

t (pp. 844-5)./ * \

11. ELECTRIFICATION. H. R, 6436, by Rep. Jackson, Wash., to change the name of the
Bonneville Power Administration to the Columbia Power Administration; to Pub¬
lic Works Committee (p. 85l) • .

12. WATER UTILIZATION. H. R. 6440, by Rep. Patman, Tex., to revive and reenact

section 6 of the act entitled ”An act authorizing the construction of certain
public works on rivers and harbors for flood control and for other purposes,”
approved. Dec. 22, 1944; to Public Works Committee (p. 35l).*

13 . PERSONNEL. H. R.-6438, by Rep. McDonough, Calif., amending the Civil Service
Retirement Act of 1930; to Post Office and Civil Service Committee (p- S 51 )*

l4- EDUCATION. H. R. 6429, hy Ren. Betts, Ohio, to provide financial' assistance
in the construction of schools, for local educational agencies affected by
Federal acouisition of real property; to Education and Labor Committee (p.

851) •

1952 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE 801

'would take care of our requirements for
initial equipment and yet avoid the building
up'of tremendous reserves of completed end
Items which might rapidly become obso¬
lescent. We have groped for, and In some
Instances, I think, found what we promised
this committee last year, that is a throttle
set somewhere between wide open, which is
war, and tigiit shut, which has been our pre¬
vious habit irt peace.

In the fourth place, we have tried to
stretch out the procurement of certain types
of items in those' fields In which unusual
technological advances give promise of sub¬
stantially improved weapons within the next
2 or 3 years. Here again we have tried to
get what we need basically for our military
security in such a fashion kjiat new and sup¬
plementary weapons, as developed, may be
rapidly supplied without causing us to write
off large accumulated stocks of obsolete
weapons.

Against the background of events,through¬
out the world which give little evidence of
any relaxation of the ultimate ambitions of
the Kremlin toward world domination we
have tried to exercise both self-restraint "^nd
selectivity in our estimates of the end forces
required to give us the minimum defense
forces needed to serve as a protection to this
country and to enable us to meet our com¬
mitments overseas; to serve as a deterrent
against aggression and to permit a rapid
mobilization to wartime strength, if that
unhappy necessity were forced upon us.

The procedure in the formulation of the
military requirements budgets was essen¬
tially the same as that followed in the sup¬
plemental of fiscal year 1951 and the basic
budget for fiscal year 1952. That is to say,
the three armed services estimated their
military and end-item requirements based
on the forces recommended by the Joint
Chiefs of Staff and approved by the National
Security Council, related to a readiness date
by which each service was to be combat¬
worthy.

One notable and uncomfortable difference
between fiscal year 1953 and fiscal years 1952
and 1951 circumstances should be men¬
tioned. Whereas in the previous 2 years
the impact of the recently started rearma¬
ment program had not noticeably affected
industry as a whole, it was apparent, in the
case of the fiscal year 1953 military budget,
that the test of feasibility of the program in
the light of the shortages of certain essen¬
tial basic raw materials become of cardinal
importance. The theory and, in fact, the
practice in the last year and a half has been
that the military services would estimate as
carefully as possible their military require¬
ments. Thereafter, other agencies of Gov-
ernment, prior to submission to the Con¬
gress, would estimate the effect of the pro¬
curement of these military requirements
both as to feasibility in a production sense
and as to the impact on the national econ¬
omy as a whole.

As I said earlier, in the previous year the
program did not have to be reduced because
of shortages of basic raw materials or be¬
cause the forecast rate of expenditures would
cause excessive financial or economic strains.

In fiscal year 1953 requests, however, we
come up against the hard realities that the
requests from the military would, in some
instances, be unrealistic because of the lack
of materials within the compressed period
of time. In other cases the requests of the
military departments would result in total
military expenditures which would be ex¬
cessive in the judgment of other competent
agencies of the Government and which, in
their opinion, would jeopardize the economy
or financial stability of the country to a
degree which was unacceptable and unwise.

The Initial budget requests submitted to
my office by the three armed services, based
on military requirements and early readiness
dates, totaled approximately $71,000,000,000,
exclusive of the requirements of the military

portion of the foreign aid program. As a re¬
sult of the review conducted by the Office of
the Secretary of Defense with the three mili¬
tary departments, and as a consequence of
the screening process at that stage of budg¬
etary development, the original estimates in
their rough form were reduced to a finished
budget of approximately $55,000,000,000.
The Department of Defense recommended
the latter figure to the Bureau of the Budget
and to the President as a reasonable fund
requirement. To reach an acceptable state
of readiness by July 1, 1963, in the case of
the Army and Marine Corps and later for the
Navy and Air Force would have involved,
according to the original estimates of the
three military departments, expenditures in
fiscal year 1953 totaling approximately $73,-
000,000,000, exclusive of expenditures for
military assistance to other countries.

Subsequent to or budget submission to
to the Bureau of the Budget and the Presi¬
dent, certain further adjustments were made
both in terms of new obligational authority
and in terms of expenditures. As a result
of these adjustments, primarily a stretch¬
out of the period in which readiness is to
be developed, the funds being requested in
the budget submission before you call for
$52,000,000,000 in fiscal year 1953, rather
•than the $55,000,000,000 figure in our initial
submission to the Bureau of the Budget
and the President.

Tflae funds being requested herein for
fiscal year 1953 will, however, permit the
Army to expand toward a goal of 21 full-
strength divisions; the Navy toward a goal
of 408 combat vessels with 16 carrier air
groups; the' Marines toward a goad of 3 full
divisions and-? air wings; and the Air Force
to build toward a goal of 143 wings. All 3
services will have the appropriate support-
type units. /

The decision to build toward these goals
rather than attempt to/each them in fiscal
year 1953 or 1954 was made after careful
consideration of the Economic, material, fis¬
cal, and military implications involved.
The reduction from our initial request to the
Bureau of the Budget was in line with these
considerations and with an expenditure
limitation as .directed by the President.

The result was an approval of the military
forces recommended by the Joint Chiefs of
Staff and'a determination by the President
that expenditures for fiscal year 1953 for the
Department of Defense and military end
items financed under the mutual security
program should be less than $60,000,000,000.
DOring the consideration of the problem we
stated as fully as possible the implications
which this calculated risk entails since it
involves a stretchout in production and
thereby an extension of the dates upon
which the services will be equipped with
modern and combat-worthy arms and
capable of sustaining themselves in battle.
I believe you have already heard from Mr.
Wilson, Director of the Office of Defense
Mobilization, on the problem of scarce ma¬
terials. Economic and fiscal considerations
have been presented to the Congress in the
Economic Report of the President and the
budget message.

I would like to emphasize that the problem
confronting this committee, the Congress,
and the Department of Defense is to com¬
plete a military program within the frame¬
work of the partial mobilization concept
while at the same time maintaining a strong
civilian economy. It has never before been
attempted in this country. We have always
operated military production on the feast or
famine basis of large production during
actual war and little or no military produc¬
tion at other times. The building of a mili¬
tary organization capable of deterring ag¬
gression without destroying our economy is
an extremely complicated problem.

With respect to the military situation, I
believe it is fair to indicate that this build¬
up does not attain the number of units with

modern equipment or the amount of mobili¬
zation reserves as early as the military
chiefs, from a purely military point of view,
would consider desirable. However, the
executive and legislative branches of the
Government must of necessity give consider¬
ation to all the factors and to arrive at the
balance which appears best for the long-term
security of this Nation. The budget before
you represents such a Judgment by the ex¬
ecutive branch of the Government.

During the course of the hearings before
this committee you will no doubt be fre¬
quently advised as to a cut-back in indi¬
vidual programs. It is only fair to indicate
that the Individual programs being pre¬
sented to you by the military departments,
in most cases, call for substantially less
new obligational authority and for some¬
what less production during fiscal year 1953
than the levels talked about during the fall
of 1951. However, I would like to remind
the committee that if the Department of
Defense is to achieve the production goals
set forth in this budget in conjunction with
those for military assistance programs, it
will be necessary to double the output of
hard goods and construction between De¬
cember 31,1951, and December 31, 1952. The
achievement of such an increase will require
vigorous efforts on the part of the Depart¬
ment of Defense, American industry, and the
civilian defense agencies, such as the Office
of Defense Mobilization. We believe that
It is within our capacity to achieve this
doubling of output of the critical long-lead-
time items of military production in the next
12 months, but because of past conversa¬
tions concerning higher rates, many people
may consider it comparatively easy to achieve
the rates now being proposed. On the basis
of my experience, I can assure you that no
production schedule is ever achieved unless
initiative, effort, and follow-up are applied
at the critical points.

During the past year as might be expected
in the initiation of a program of the magni¬
tude undertaken by the Department of De¬
fense, numerous individual difficulties have
arisen in securing the production the De¬
partment desires. In such a tooling-up pe¬
riod there is, of course, a shortage of machine
tools. More and more these difficulties are
being reduced to shortages of individual
types of tools or facilities which make them
easier to deal with. In cooperation with the
Director of Defense Mobilization we have
been working with manufacturers to find
ways and means by which production could
be expedited pending the delivery of new
tools and by the adaptation of existing tools
even if somewhat less efficient.

To assure that the goals set forth in this
budget are achieved, I have directed the
Chairman of the Munitions Board and Mr.
Clay Bedford, an outstanding production ex¬
pert who has recently joined my staff, to
work with the three military departments to
' break any existing bottlenecks in military
contracting or production techniques that
might retard us in reaching our goals. I be¬
lieve that with this concentrated effort the
desired production will be achieved. Meas¬
ured in dollars, this means expenditures of
over $85,000,000,000 during the next 18
months by the Department of Defense, two-
thirds of which will be for hard goods and
construction. The quarterly expenditure
rate on June 30, 1953, will be approximately
$16,000,000,000. I should add that these
figures include expenditures for the military
portion of the foreign aid program.

As in the two previous years, approxi¬
mately one-half of the funds being requested
would be obligated for capital investment
type of items, such as airplanes, tanks, etc.
The authority being requested herein for
such types of items when used with the funds
provided in fiscal year 1953 and fiscal year
1952 will permit the projection of firm pro¬
duction schedules, except for aircraft and
ships, generally to June 30, 1954. In the

802 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE February

case of aircraft for naval aviation, the sched¬
ules would he projected on this basis through
December 1954 and in the case of aircraft
for the Air Force, into calendar year 1955,
In the case of ships, the time will vary de¬
pending on the size of the vessel being con¬
structed. This further forward financing
for major procurement is the result of our
experience during the last 10 months which
indicates the advisability of lengthening the
period of forward contract commitments—-
for example, 6 months were added to the
financed lead time for aircraft for the Air
Force. Details will be presented by the mil¬
itary departments but in general it reflects
the increasing complexity of managing the
flow of material and production.

It is our opinion that these additional
amounts are extremely important if industry
is to have, a reasonable opportunity to com¬
ply with the decision to produce needed mili¬
tary equipment and simultaneously to carry
on a reasonable level of production for the
civilian economy, because with the additional
funds being requested we will be able to
make firm contracts for military production
involving delivery of goods during the next
2 or 3 years. This will permit the Office of
Defense Mobilization to make reasonably
firm long-range determinations as to mate¬
rial that will remain available for civilian
production and alloy/ manufacturers to so
adjust their total production as to meet the
schedules for military equipment and at the
same time secure maximum civilian produc¬
tion within the limits of material availa¬
bility. With a lesser amount of money we
would be limiting our efforts to a program
level that would increase, beyond the realms
of prudence, the calculated risks already
taken. It would force us to less efficient
operations and would not permit the con¬
tinued accelerated production during the
next 2 years of the major military items
we need.

In bringing the budget to the level re¬
quested by the President and in stretching
out the period of force and materiel build-up,
we believe that all of the calculated risks,
considered prudent, have been accepted.
With the objectives outlined above in mind,
the Department of Defense strongly recom¬
mends that obligational authority in the
amount of $52,000,000,000, as submitted in
the President’s budget, be appropriated for
fiscal year 1953.

THREE-YEAR PROGRAM OF BOY SCOUTS
OF AMERICA

Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President, at
this time I wish to invite the attention
of the Senate to one of America’s great
agencies, the Boy Scouts of America,
which operates under a Federal charter
granted by Congress. The Boy Scouts of
America was incorporated 42 years ago
and is observing Boy Scout Anniversary
Week throughout the Nation. Many
Senators are actively connected with the
Scouts, and I am sure that all Senators
are aware of the splendid program of
character building and citizenship train¬
ing which the Boy Scouts organization
is conducting for the boys of this coun¬
try. During the past 42 years more than
19,000,000 boys and men have unselfishly
rendered service to their communities as
members of this organization. The
present membership is nearly 3,000,000,
and in these critical days it is reassuring
to feel that we have a great force such as
this working for the youth of the Nation.

The Boy Scouts of America is nonsec¬
tarian, nonpolitical, and nonmilitary. It
enrolls country boys and city boys, the
sons of the wealthy and boys from the
slums. It stands for Americanism and

all the traditions our forefathers bought
with blood and toil through the years.

This week the Boy Scouts of America
is inaugurating what it calls a 3-year
program with the slogan “Forward on
Liberty’s Team.” The overfall objective
of this program is to make the boy, the
Scout movemerit, and the Nation physi¬
cally strong, mentally awake, and mor¬
ally straight. This program is broken
down into certain'speeifics, and the in¬
teresting thing- is tha£ every boy and
every man can have a share in makine
these things happen.

I urge that all Senators in their local
communities give their support' to the
Boy Scouts. I know of no agency that is
more effective in building our future
citizens. \

PREVENTION OF ILLEGAL ENTRY OF
ALIENS

Mr. McFARLAND. Mr. President, I
wish to ask whether there is any ob¬
jection to temporarily laying aside the
unfinished business and considering
Senate bill 1851, a bill known as the
wetback bill. The title of the bill is
“To assist in preventing aliens from en¬
tering or remaining in the United States
illegally.” It is calendar No. 1076.

The contract for Mexican labor ex¬
pires on February 11, and time is of the
essence in connection with the passage
of the bill. We are told that if the Sen¬
ate passes the bill and sends it to the
House of Representatives, it will be pos¬
sible to obtain an extension of the ex¬
piration date because action to that ex¬
tent will then have been taken.

Therefore, I should like to have the
Senate pass the bill today, if there is no
objection to having it considered.

Mr. O’MAHONEY. Mr. President,
will the Senator from Arizona yield to
me?

Mr. McFARLAND. I yield.

Mr. O’MAHONEY. Do I correctly un¬
derstand that the bill has been unani¬
mously reported from the Committee on
the Judiciary?

Mr. McFARLAND. That is my un¬
derstanding.

Mr. O’MAHONEY. There is no objec¬
tion to the bill, so far as the majority
leader knows; is that correct?

Mr. McFARLAND. That is what I
am trying to ascertain.

Mr. O’MAHONEY. The Senator from
Arizona is of the opinion, is he not, that
the bill is noncontroversial and that its
consideration will not take very long?

Mr. McFARLAND. I hope that con¬
sideration of the bill will not require
much time; if it should take long, I
would ask that the bill go over until
tomorrow, rather than to have it con¬
sidered today, because several Senators
wish to speak on the unfinished busi¬
ness, which is the Alaska statehood bill.

Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, will
the Senator from Arizona yield to me?

Mr. McFARLAND. I yield.

Mr. HUMPHREY. My interest in this
measure has been manifested since the
first session of the Eighty-second Con¬
gress, in connection with the so-called
Ellender bill.

At the present time the committee is
holding hearings on the question of man¬
power as it affects the United States.

This bill was reported by the commit¬
tee yesterday, I believe. As yet, none
of us has seen a report on the bill or
the report which comes from the com¬
mittee, nor have we had an opportunity
to examine any of the hearings on the
bill.

I am sure the bill meets the purposes
which Senators had in mind at the time
of the debate on the so-called Ellender
bill. However, in view of the very hot
controversy we had at the time of con¬
sideration of the Ellender bill, when the
Senator from Illinois [Mr. Douglas] , who
is not at this time on the floor of the
Senate, was very much concerned about
the very measure on which the Judiciary
Committee now has taken action, I think
we should have at least several hours
today before we agree to the proposed
unanimous-consent request.

Mr. McFARLAND. Mr. President, in
order that Senators may know what the
procedure will be-

Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, will the
Senator from Arizona yield to me?

Mr. McFARLAND. I yield.

Mr. AIKEN. I wish to assure the ma¬
jority leader that I think this bill should
be considered promptly, not later than
tomorrow. However, we have heard so
much discussion about illegal employ¬
ment of aliens on farms that I wish to
make sure that this bill treats all per¬
sons alike, because I have a suspicion
that there may be more aliens illegally
employed in the cities of the United
States than there are on farms. So I
desire to make sure that the bill covers
those who are in the cities, as well as
those who are on farms in the South¬
western States.

Nevertheless, Mr. President, I think
the Senate should consider the bill not
later than tomorrow, probably, although
I must admit that this is the first time
I have read the bill.

Mr. McFARLAND. Mr. President, as
I stated at the beginning of my remarks,
time is of the essence in connection with
this bill. On the other hand, I do not
wish to ask any Senator to vote for a
bill which he feels he has not had suffi¬
cient time to study.

Mr. KILGORE. Mr. President, will
the Senator from Arizona yield, to per¬
mit me to make a brief statement?

Mr. McFARLAND. Yes; I yield to the
Senator from West Virginia.

Mr. KILGORE. Let me say that the
draft of the bill which now comes before
the Senate was accepted by the Depart¬
ment of Agriculture and representatives
of the agricultural organizations, and by
immigration-service officials. The bill
was really drafted by them, and as many
safeguards as possible were placed around
it. At the same time it gives us the
right to obtain evidence with respect to
illegal labor at its inception.

Furthermore, on the question of labor,
I may say that these groups are in a
dangerous situation in the Southwest.
There is a legal means of getting labor
over the international boundary if the
agreement is renewed. But the agree¬
ment cannot be renewed, at least until
the Senate passes this bill and the bill
goes to the House. Renewal of the
agreement will then be discussed. This

1952 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE 803

bill would provide the necessary safe¬
guards to protect us against illegal en¬
tries. I refer to illegal entries by persons
who may be personally unobjectionable,
but who are unable to pass the immi¬
gration tests.

Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, will the
Senator from Arizona yield?

Mr. McFARLAND. I yield to the
Senator from Vermont.

Mr. AIKEN. I should like to ask the
Senator from West Virginia whether he
is sure that every provision of this bill
applies to the illegal employment of
aliens within cities, as well as upon
farms. Does the bill treat both classes
exactly alike?

Mr. KILGORE. It treats everyone in
exactly the same way, except for one
feature of the bill.

Mr. AIKEN. What is that?

Mr. KILGORE. The exception is
that, along the border, the immigration
officers are granted a little more author¬
ity to conduct searches within a reason¬
able distance from any external bound¬
ary of the United States than they now
possess.

Mr. AIKEN. In other words, the bill
authorizes the immigration authorities
to search for illegal entries along the
entire Texas-Arizona-New Mexico bor¬
der, but not, for example, in the city of
Chicago. Is that correct?

Mr. KILGORE. They may search any
place.

Mr. AIKEN. The bill says “within a
distance of 25 miles from any such ex¬
ternal boundary.”

Mr. MAGNUSON. That applies to
search without a warrant.

Mr. KILGORE. But they may search
at any place with a warrant.

Mr. AIKEN. Then, in the mind of
the Senator from West Virginia, there
is no discrimination at all. If I may
have assurance that there is no discrimi¬
nation with respect to farms, I shall have
no objection to the bill.

Mr. KILGORE. I may say to the
Senator from Vermont, the bill provides
that within a reasonable distance of the
external boundaries of the United States
the Immigration Service may enter and
search any railway car, aircraft, con¬
veyance, or vehicle without a warrant,
for the purpose of discovering illegal en¬
tries. It also provides that “within a
distance of 25 miles from any such ex¬
ternal boundary” the immigration au¬
thorities may have access to private
lands, but not dwellings, for the purpose
of patrolling the border to prevent the
illegal entry of aliens into the United
States. They may procure from the dis¬
trict headquarters, of which there are
only four, warrants authorizing them,
at a day and hour fixed in the warrants,
to make a search for illegal entries sup¬
posed to be harbored therein.

Mr. AIKEN. I thank the Senator
from West Virginia. I simply raised
this question, because it seemed that last
year an effort was made to obtain legis¬
lation which was apparently directed at
farmers only; and I wanted to make sure
that any legislation we pass would apply
to everyone.

Mr. KILGORE. I may say to the Sen¬
ator from Vermont that the use of one
particular word in the bill should con¬
vince him. In the previous bill the word
“harboring” was employed generally.
This bill goes to the matter of employ¬
ment, no matter where the person may
be employed, whether on a farm, in a
factory, in a shop, or anywhere else.
On page 4, beginning at line 18, the bill
reads:

Provided, however, That for the purposes of
this section, employment (including tho
usual and normal practices incident to em¬
ployment) shall not be deemed to constitute
harboring.

That is an additional safeguard.

Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr. President, will
the Senator from Arizona yield?

Mr. McFARLAND. I yield to the Sen¬
ator from Washington.

Mr. MAGNUSON. I think it should
be pointed out to the Senator from Ver¬
mont that the fact that there was no
hearing on this bill is not unusual, but
is attributable to the time element.
However, the bill itself was the result of
long conferences between the State De¬
partment, the executive department,
the farm labor-management groups, in¬
cluding, I believe, the National Grange,
and a great legislative council. By rea¬
son of the time element, we have
amended it in several conferences, and
this is the result agreed upon by every¬
one. That is why no hearings were
held.

Mr. AIKEN. I have had no oppor¬
tunity to read the bill; but, with the
assurance that its provisions are equi¬
table, I have no objection.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The
clerk will read the bill by its title, for
the information of the Senate.

The Legislative Clerk. A bill (S.
1851) to assist in preventing aliens from
entering or remaining in the United
States illegally.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is
there objection to the present considera¬
tion of the bill?

Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, I
do not desire to object to the present
consideration of the bill. I merely want
to say that because of a lack of time,
many of us are not going to have any
opportunity whatever to study this pro¬
posed legislation. But I recognize the
difficulty which our Government has en¬
countered in the renegotiation of the
agreement with the Republic of Mexico,
and if this is a part of the means to get
the agreement renewed so that we can
make some forward progress, then I shall
not object.

However, I may say, Mr. President,
that the problem of the wetback and
the problem of migratory labor should
not be considered as being properly
treated or fully explored by a bill such
as Senate bill 1851. This bill treats but
one aspect of the problem: it gives the
Immigration and Naturalization Serv¬
ice and the Justice Department more
direct authority than they have under
present law. It is a limited approach to
a very difficult problem, and there will
be much more which needs to be done.

I shall not object, but I want the record
perfectly clear that we have not as yet,
from what casual study I have been
able to make of Senate bill 1851, come
anywhere near really getting at the
problem of the wetback.

I listened to testimony this morning
from Archbishop Lucey, of San Antonio,
Tex., and from Dr. Fuller, the execu¬
tive secretary of the President’s Com¬
mission on Migratory Labor. There are
hundreds of thousands of wetbacks in
this country literally adulterating the
American employment market and pos¬
ing great social and legal problems to
the people of the United States. This
bill as an effort to strengthen our law
is commendable, and on that basis, I
think it should be supported. But I
repeat, Mr. President, we have nowhere
near met the obligation which the Con¬
gress owes to the American people in
dealing with the very difficult and com¬
plex problem of migratory labor.

Mr. KILGORE. Mr. President, I
should like to remind the Senator that
a bill going much further than this is
now in the Committee on the Judiciary,
a bill which completely takes care of
the immigration problem, or attempts to
do so, and recodifies the entire immigra¬
tion laws. This is a temporary ex¬
pedient to take care of an emergency.
The other bill goes much further.

This bill is more or less for the pur¬
pose of strengthening the arm of the
immigration service pending the pas¬
sage of complete legislation on the sub¬
ject of immigration, and to enable them
to ferret out certain places which they
have heretofore been unable to search.
The bill, in short, makes it an offense to
harbor or to transport or to bring in wet¬
backs. The previous law makes it an
offense to enter the country illegally.
The pending bill provides certain safe¬
guards. It provides that employment
shall not be deemed to constitute harbor¬
ing, if the normal practices of the em¬
ployment are followed. Second, it al¬
lows a search of vehicles within a rea¬
sonable distance of the external bound¬
aries, without warrant. It must be
realized that we have very few immi¬
gration inspectors, and they must not be
tied down too tightly. Third, it allows
the entry on private lands within 25
miles of the external boundaries, but
not the entry of dwelling houses, to
search for illegal entries. Fourth, it
permits search to be made upon the is¬
suance of a warrant, which warrant must
be dated and limited to 30 days for its
execution, and the time of day or night
at which the warrant may be executed
shall be specified. The search may be
made at any place in the United States
where there is reasonable ground to be¬
lieve there are illegal entries, and the
warrant must be issued either by a dis¬
trict director or his assistant, there be¬
ing four district directors in the United
States and three assistant directors.

Mr. JENNER. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?

Mr. KILGORE. I yield to the Sen¬
ator from Indiana.

No. 18-2

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE February 5

804

Mr. JENNER. For the benefit of the
Senate, I think the Senate might explain
that that represented the only disagree¬
ment in the committee.

Mr. KILGORE. That is correct.

Mr. JENNER. He might explain also
that the farmers of this country are very
much interested in that provision, and
that it was the intention of this proposed
legislation, and so written into the re¬
port, to limit the number of assistant di¬
rectors.

Mr. KILGORE. The Senator is cor¬
rect. The report will show that that
was the intention of the committee.
The bill, as originally drafted, used the
term “supervisory personnel.’’ The word
“supervisory” was spelled out to mean
the district directors and their assistants,
there being four directox-s and three as¬
sistants.

Mr. CAIN. Mr. President, will the
Senator from West Virginia yield for a
question?

Mr. KILGORE. In just a moment. I
should first like to finish my thought.
That was not put into the bill but was
written into the report, because the only
dispute we had was with reference to
the John Doe warrant of the old prohi¬
bition days and the fear that such a
wai’rant might be written.

I now yield to the Senator from Wash¬
ington.

Mr. CAIN. If the bill is passed by the
Senate during the course of the day, will
the committee’s report on the bill be
made available to the Members of the
Senate?

Mr. KILGORE. The committee’s re¬
port was filed yesterday, but for some
reason it has not come back from the
Government Printing Office. I am as¬
sured by the Secretary that it will be
here some time this afternoon.

Mr. CAIN. I thank the Senator.

Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, will
the Senator from West Virginia yield?

Mr. KILGORE. I yield to the Senator
fi’om Minnesota.

Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, I
notice that the proviso on page 4 of the
bill reads as follows:

Provided, however, That, for the purposes
of this section, employment (including the
usual and normal practices incident to em¬
ployment) shall not be deemed to constitute
harboring.

What is the purpose of that particular
proviso if the purpose of the bill is to
stop the tragic wetback system?

Mr. KILGORE. Many wetbacks have
been in the country for years. They are
frequently mistaken for American citi¬
zens. By stating that so long as an
employer lets the employee cari-y on only
the normal work of his employment and
does not make any special effort of any
kind to conceal him, that of itself shall
not constitute harboring. But if he
takes any further steps, such as provid¬
ing a place for the employee to hide
out, that does constitute harboring.
Letting him carry on the normal course
of employment cannot be so considered.

Consider a farmer who takes a hot
lunch to the field at noon. The mere
fact that that is being done to save time
and to give better food to the men
would not be classed as harboring, as

it would be if the food were taken out
into the underbrush to someone who
was concealed there.

I know what the Senator has in mind.
Practically every State in the Union has
had the wetback problem. Some of
these people cannot meet the standards
of immigration. They may be criminals.
Because they are wetbacks, they can be
kept in a state of peonage. We have a
contract system whereby aliens can le¬
gitimately be bi’ought into the United
States. But before they are brought in,
the local employment service is available,
or, if not available, then by the contract
system aliens can be brought in to take
care of crops in certain places and to
perform certain types of work. But they
must meet the standards of immigration.
This bill would give the Immigration
Service some help which it does not now
have.

Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, I do
not wish to delay the Senate’s considera¬
tion of this measure, but I want the
record expressly, explicitly, and per¬
fectly clear that this measure is but one
of the many things which need to be
done in terms of dealing with the prob¬
lem of the wetback and migratory
laborer.

I also want it clear as to the restric¬
tions in the bill, namely, the warrant,
the number of persons who may issue a
warrant, the supervisors or assistant
supervisors, and the Attorney General;
and the fact that a wetback employed
under what are normal conditions of
employment severely limits the applica¬
tion of the measui’e as an effective piece
of legislation to deal with the wetback
problem.

I am not saying that it is not progress.
It is. But the testimony which we heard
this morning, and which is still ringing
in my mind, of one of the distinguished
leaders of a great church, who came all
the way from San Antonio, Tex., at his
own expense, to testify about the miser¬
able, deplorable conditions which exist
in the migratory-labor field, is some¬
thing which is shocking and revealing.

I think every Member of the Senate
ought to be aware of the testimony of
the Archbishop of San Antonio in which
he pointed out that in Texas alone some
60,000 American citizens sought employ¬
ment elsewhere, and under the agree¬
ment 50,000 Mexicans were brought into
the United States to replace Americans
who had to go elsewhere for employ¬
ment. These are not my words, but ai’e
the words of a distinguished churchman
who appeared in behalf of his people.

Let no Member of the Senate think
that Senate bill 1851 is an answer to the
problem. The bill is long overdue, and
that is the reason why it must be passed;
but it has been restricted and limited
and will necessitate, I think, much more
consideration of the problem by the
Committee on the Judiciary. I know
there is an immigration bill before us,
and I know that we will take some action
on the subject this year. We ought to
be as interested in the deportation of
persons illegally entering from Canada,
England, France, or Germany as we are
with reference to Mexicans or persons
from the British West Indies. There

are all kinds of laws on the books with
reference to deporting people who may
have a bad idea. The books are filled
with legislation providing for the depor¬
tation of Communists and Fascists. I
want to see to it that those who have
entered this country illegally are de¬
ported also, that the laws of this land
are adequately enfoi’ced, and that there
is no doubt as to what the purpose of
the Congress is, namely, that illegal en¬
tries shall be barred.

The wetback problem stands as a
blight and a shame on the American
Republic. We talk about aid for the
underprivileged; we talk about integrity
and the enforcement of law. Yet one
of the principal problems we face is the
way we have permitted the wetback to
remain here and to permit himself to
be exploited and, at the same time, de¬
prive American laborers of employment.

Mr. President, I have no objection to
the consideration of the bill.

Mr. KILGORE. Perhaps the distin¬
guished Senator fi’om Minnesota knows
that the original bill introduced was in
line with his statement. There is a very
strong bill in the House which is in line
with the original bill introduced. How¬
ever, the thought at this time was that
it would woi-k a very severe hardship;
in other words, action had to be taken
gradually so as to accomplish as much
as we could this year and do a little more
next year and not punish employers
who were used to a long practice of care¬
lessness which we had allowed to de¬
velop, and at the same time, not punish
the type of farmer who wants to pay
legitimate wages but cannot find the
necessary labor. He wants to bring the
aliens into the country temporarily and
then send them back after the work is
done. We do not want to punish him
by having him compete with the wet¬
backs.

That is the reason for the modifica¬
tion of the pending bill. In the opinion
of the Senator from West Virginia, it
is a tempoi’ary expedient. I hope we
shall eventually reach the ultimate.

Mr. LEHMAN. Mr. President, will the
Senator from West Virginia yield?

Mr. KILGORE. I yield to the Sena¬
tor from New Yoi'k.

Mr. LEHMAN. Mr. President, as the
Senator from West Virginia knows, I
am strongly in favor of preventing the
entry into this country of wetbacks, and
I am also in favor of their deportation
or of the deportation of any other man
or woman who has entered the country
illegally. Since I feel that way, does not
the Senator agree with me that the point
raised by the Senator from Minnesota,
that this bill unnecessarily limits the
power of the Government in that respect,
is valid?

I specifically ask the Senator about a
proviso in subsection (4) of section 8,
commencing in line 18, page 4, reading as
follows:

Provided, however, That for the purposes
of this section, employment (including the
usual and normal practices incident to em¬
ployment) shall not be deemed to constitute
harboring.

My question is whether the Senator
from West Virginia does not believe that
that provision substantially weakens the

805

1952 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE

force and effect of this entire paragraph
in section 8.

Mr. KILGORE. No, I will say to the
Senator from New York I do not believe
that that proviso, properly interpreted,
weakens the section, because this is a bill
providing punishment for people who
“harbor,” and it is very hard, let us say,
for the small farmer, or the factory own¬
er, to know, when he sees a man coming
into the community, what his previous
status was. The Senator from New York
must realize, and the Senator from In¬
diana well knows, that wetbacks come
across the border and get a little money
in Texas, Arizona, or New Mexico, and
then go to Indiana to work for a while
on the farms there, and when the season
in that area is over, actually trucks are
sent to Indiana, Ohio, Illinois, for the
workers, and haul them back for the cot¬
ton-picking season. The trucks are not
sent to West Virginia, because the work¬
ers labor in the mines of West Virginia,
and the work is not seasonal.

Let us say a farmer picks up a wetback
in Illinois from a farm there, and hauls
him down to the South, as he has
been accustomed to doing, through his
agents. So long as he puts the man into
employment in the South, that in itself
shall not be considered “harboring,” so
as to render him liable to punishment;
but the wetback may still be apprehend¬
ed.

Mr. LEHMAN. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield for another question?

Mr. KILGORE. Certainly.

Mr. LEHMAN. As I read that section,
the words in it are as follows: “willfully
or knowingly”—I emphasize the words
“willfully and knowingly”—“willfully or
knowingly encourages or induces, or at¬
tempts to encourage or induce, either
directly or indirectly, the entry into the
United States of any alien, including an
alien seaman, not duly admitted by an
immigration officer or not lawfully enti¬
tled to enter or reside within the United
States under the terms of this act,” and
so forth.

One who comes within that description
shall be deemed guilty of a felony. The
provision starting in line 18 it seems to
me nullifies the other language. A man
does not subject himself to any penalty
unless it can be shown that he has will¬
fully or knowingly induced the admission
or entry of such aliens.

Mr. KILGORE. Oh, no. If he willful¬
ly or knowingly induces the aliens to
come into the United States, that of itself
is an offense, but the mere fact of having
them in his employment shall not under
the meaning of the words, be classed as
“harboring.”

Mr. LEHMAN. I understand that, but
what I am not clear about in my mind,
and possibly the Senator from West Vir¬
ginia can enlighten me, is why the pro¬
vision on line 18 is inserted, limiting the
effect of the other part of the subsection.
I am trying to strengthen the bill.

Mr. KILGORE. So am I, but at the
same time I am trying to do it, not at the
expense of some man who unwittingly
or unknowingly, or thoughtlessly hires a
man he does not know to be a wetback,
who may be pretty well in the interior
of the country, and who is seeking em¬

ployment. The man to whom I am re¬
ferring may need an employee, and hires
the alien. That of itself should not sub¬
ject him to a penalty. Once he finds
out the real situation, he is knowingly
and willfully harboring the man, and the
authorities can go after him.

Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, will
the Senator from West Virginia yield?

Mr. KILGORE. I yield to the Sena¬
tor from California.

Mr. KNOWLAND. As a matter of
fact, is it not true, particularly in the
border States of Texas, New Mexico,
Arizona, and California, that with their
Spanish-Mexican background, there are
a great many people living on our side of
the border who are American citizens,
who speak Spanish, and there are a great
many from the other side who come
over who speak English, and it is diffi¬
cult at times, no matter if one is trying
to prevent illegal entry, to differentiate
between the American citizen on our side
of the border and the person who may
have come across?

As I understand the situation, what
the Senator from West Virginia has been
trying to accomplish is this: If there is
in fact a conspiracy to bring in inad¬
missible persons knowingly and willfully,
those guilty would be subject to the pen¬
alty, but if in the normal course of
employment one happens to get a wet¬
back in his group, he should not then be
penalized for a condition to which he
has not been a party except in a non¬
willful way.

Mr. KILGORE. The Senator from
California is correct in his statement.
Not only is it true of the border States,
but also of my own State of West Vir¬
ginia, where great numbers of legally
entered people of Spanish or Mexican
ancestry work in the mines and fac¬
tories. If someone drifts in, speaking
the same language and associating with
them, it is very difficult for an employer
to know which ones are in the country
illegally^

A mine operator, for instance, who
may have a hundred Spanish-speaking
employees working in his mine, may
suddenly learn that there is one wetback
among them, but he has not induced that
wetback to come there. Unless there is
in this bill a clause defining harboring,
in accordance with the definition as
given by the Supreme Court, such an
employer could be held guilty of a felony
by reason of the fact that he had har¬
bored a wetback.

Incidentally, that could operate also
against a Spanish-speaking person, or
a person of Spanish, Italian, or other
foreign ancestry, who has come into this
country, who is a bona fide citizen, and
who tries to find work, because employ¬
ers would be reluctant to hire a person
who spoke a foreign language.

Mr. LEHMAN and Mr. ELLENDER
addressed the Chair.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does
the Senator from West Virginia yield,
and if so, to whom?

Mr. KILGORE. I yield first to the
Senator from New York.

Mr. LEHMAN. I expect to vote for the
bill because I believe it is a step for¬

ward. But my desire is to make it much
stronger than it is at the present time.

It seems to me that, on page 4, lines
18 to 21, beginning with the word "Pro¬
vided,” weaken the effect of the bill very
materially. I do not believe that lan¬
guage belongs in the bill or is needed
because no one may be found guilty of
a crime or a felony unless it can be shown
that he has willfully or knowingly en¬
couraged the admission or entry of a
wetback into this country.

In the absence of an act on the part
of a citizen to induce illegal entry will¬
fully or knowingly, it does not seem to
me that he is subject to any penalty at
all. Therefore, I believe it is not neces¬
sary or advisable to include the escape
clause which is inserted at the end of
this subsection,

Mr. CHAVEZ. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield to me for a moment?

Mr. KILGORE. Perhaps the distin¬
guished Senator from New York has not
read all the provisions of the bill.

Mr. LEHMAN. I could not have read
all of it because I did not see the bill until
a few minutes ago.

Mr. KILGORE. Subparagraph (3) of
section 8 reads as follows: “willfully or
knowingly conceals, harbors, or shields
from detection, or attempts to conceal,
harbor, or shield from detection, in any
place, including any building or any
means of transportation.”

This limiting clause affects the defini¬
tion of the word “harbor” in subsec¬
tion (3).

I now yield to the Senator from New
Mexico. ,

Mr. CHAVEZ. Mr. President, the
point I wish to make in response to the
question raised by the distinguished Sen¬
ator from New York is this: All of us, of
course, wish to have some provision
adopted affecting the wetback or any
other immigrant who is here illegally,
but unless there is such a definition as
that outlined by the Senator from West
Virginia, we shall be completely violat¬
ing the criminal laws of the country.

Why should a man be punished, or
why should he be deemed to have com¬
mitted a felony, if he has not acted will¬
fully and unlawfully? If he acts as a
matter of course, by mistake, because he
does not know whether a person is a citi¬
zen or not; if he does it in an innocent
manner, and does not do it premedi-
tatedly, why should he be punished? I
am just as sincere as is any other Sena¬
tor in trying to solve the wetback prob¬
lem, because it affects my State.

As was previously stated by the Senator
from Minnesota, what Archbishop Lucey
said before the committee this morning
was correct. Our citizens, brothers of
the boys who are dying in Korea, boys
from Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona,
are in many instances unable to obtain
work because of the wetback problem.
However, I do not want to punish an
American citizen because he makes a
mistake and inadvertently allows some¬
one to come into the United States ille¬
gally, or who employs a person when he
innocently thinks that he is either a legal
entrant or a citizen of this country.

Mr. LEHMAN. Mr. President, I should
like to point out to the Senator that I

806

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE

February 5

am eager to see this problem solved. I
have bills which have been introduced
or will be introduced, which would permit
the liberalization of our immigration
laws, so that decent men and women who
conform to the standards set by our Gov¬
ernment may be permitted to enter this
country.

Mr. CHAVEZ. I should like to associ¬
ate myself with that idea.

Mr. LEHMAN. On the other hand, I
desire to close the doors against the entry
of certain persons, and to deport anyone
who has entered this country illegally,
because I think illegal entries are bad for
the country.

Mr. CHAVEZ. So do I.

Mr. LEHMAN. I also believe that the
existence of large groups of immigrants,
numbering several hundred thousand,
who come into the United States illegally
militates against the possibility of decent
law-abiding, honest men and women
coming into this country legally.

Mr. CHAVEZ. I also wish to associate
myseif with the Senator from New York
in that idea. However, I believe that so
far as the wetback problem is concerned,
this bill represents progress. In dealing
with this problem time is of the essence.
The law, or the contract made pursuant
to the existing law, expires on the 11th
of this month, as I understand. I should
like to have some action taken. I feel
as does the Senator from New York, that
the committee has made progress.

Mr. LEHMAN. I thank the Senator.
I certainly will not object to the consid¬
eration of the bill.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is
there objection to the present considera¬
tion of the bill?

Mr. KILGORE. Mr. President, I yield
the floor.

Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, I
hope there will be no objection to the
consideration of this bill. It will be re¬
called that the bill which was considered
last year to permit the importation of
Mexican farm labor was debated to a
considerable extent on the floor. I am
sure that Senators will remember the
amendment which was proposed by the
Senator from Illinois [Mr. Douglas],
and adopted by the Senate, but later
eliminated in conference.

The amendment to the immigration
law which we are now considering does
not, I admit, go even as far as the so-
called Douglas amendment. However,
as has been stated many times, the pro¬
posed amendment goes a large part of
the way. It is my hope that within
the next few months the Senate will con¬
sider th& omnibus bill now on the cal¬
endar, which would further strengthen
the immigration laws.

The enactment of this amendment is
necessary, I understand, because the
Mexican Government refuses to enter
into another contract pursuant to exist¬
ing law unless we strengthen our im¬
migration laws. It will be recalled that
when the agreement was entered into
last year the President of the Republic
of Mexico, as well as our own President,
decided to limit the contract to 6 months,
in the hope that the Congress would en¬
act a law to assist in solving the wetback
problem.

Mr. KILGORE. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?

Mr. ELLENDER. I yield.

Mr. KILGORE. The Senator from
Louisiana probably well knows that the
Republic of Mexico wants to restrict the
migration to the United States of Mexi¬
cans from northern Mexico, because
Mexico is trying to build up her own
agriculture. For that reason the Mexi¬
can Government is just as much op¬
posed to the wetback as we are. Labor
is brought from the southern agricul¬
tural section of Mexico into the United
States, and then returned to Mexico.

It is for these reasons that we must
strengthen the wetback law. Otherwise
the Government of Mexico will not enter
into an agreement.

Mr. ELLENDER. When we entered
into the contract last year there was a
provision whereby labor was to be taken
from the southern part of Mexico, to
meet the very point to which the Senator
is now calling attention.

I find that there is a lack of cooper¬
ation on the part of the Mexican Gov¬
ernment in fighting the wetback prob¬
lem. For example, there is a law on the
statute books of Mexico which makes it
a crime punishable by fine and imprison¬
ment if a wetback, returned to Mexico,
is shown to have crossed illegally. The
Mexican Government can legally prose¬
cute him. However, the Mexican Gov¬
ernment will not do it. It puts the en¬
tire burden on- the American Govern¬
ment. It is my hope that if this bill is
passed, we shall get more cooperation
from the Mexican Government, and that
it will assist us in fighting the wetback
problem. I am certain that our present
problem would have been substantially
reduced if the Mexican Government had
taken action to punish, under its exist¬
ing laws, the thousands of wetbacks who
have been returned to Mexico by us. I
suggest that this entire wetback prob¬
lem can be solved only if we get more
cooperation from the Mexican Govern¬
ment.

Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President,
will the Senator yield?

Mr. ELLENDER. I yield.

Mr. KNOWLAND. Let me say for the
purpose of the Record that during the
period Congress was in adjournment I
went into the Imperial Valley, whey-e-re-
ception centers have been established.
I commend the Immigration Service and
the Department of Labor for the job
they are doing. The fact of the matter
is that many of the farm groups, as well
as some of those in the Labor Depart¬
ment, have told me that the wages paid
were comparable to those paid to other
labor, and that the Mexican labor actu¬
ally cost the farmer a little more than
other labor would cost, because of the
expense of bringing the labor in, the
bond, and so forth. It is not entirely
a one-sided affair. If Mexican labor
were allowed to come from the region
immediately south of the border, the
situation would not be quite so serious,
because the agricultural problems in
that region are, to some degree, at least,
comparable to those in Imperial County.
When Mexican labor is brought from
farther down in Mexico, many persons

come into the United States who have
not had very much agricultural experi¬
ence under modern methods.

When Mexican labor is employed in
this country it accumulates a substan¬
tial number of dollars to take back to
Mexico. I was given certain figures rel¬
ative to the amounts which Mexicans
had accumulated and taken back into
Mexico. They also accumulate and take
back with them large quantities of
American merchandise.

Moreover, as a sort of practical point
4 program, they are taking back with
them to their farms and neighborhoods
modern methods of agricultural develop¬
ment which I think will prove highly
beneficial in improving the standard of
living, the production of food, and the
general economic condition in certain
agricultural regions of Mexico which
have not heretofore had the benefit of
such modern methods.

Mr. ELLENDER. I am glad that the
Senator from California has made that
point. It seems that the officials in Mex¬
ico do not appreciate the benefits men¬
tioned by the Senator from California.

In a measure they are forcing us to
get labor from far down in southern
Mexico, in the hope that the labor in
northern Mexico will remain in agri¬
cultural employment in that area.

So long as the Mexican Government
takes the position it does, we will never
have the kind of cooperation that is
necessary if we are to solve the wetback
problem. I am sure that if the Mexican
Government took the proper steps and
actually punished wetbacks after they
are returned to Mexico, the rate of illegal
immigration wopld be substantially re¬
duced.

Mr. President, imagine the amount of
money we spent last year to solve the
problem. We not only assisted on our
own border by making it as hard as pos¬
sible for wetbacks to enter initially, but
when we found them over here, we trans-.
ported them a few hundred miles into
the interior of Mexico, so that they could
not just turn around and thumb their
way back across the border. That did
not stop them. The Mexican Govern¬
ment, under existing statutes, could
have punished these people. They
could have had them arrested and tried
under Mexican law. That would have
been a good way to proceed. Yet, when
such a proposal was made, there was
nobody at home. The Mexican Govern¬
ment seems to expect us to do all the
work.

It is my hope that this bill will pass
as it is now written, and that from now
on the Mexican Government will be a
little more cooperative concerning the
problem of wetbacks.

Mr. CONNALLY. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?

Mr. ELLENDER. Certainly.

Mr. CONNALLY. I should like to ask
some questions of the distinguished
Senator from Louisiana, because I know
how interested he is and how much work
he has done to solve the whole problem.
Is it not true that the main problem—
and this question should be addressed to
the Mexican Government, as well as to
our own Government—is that of allow-

1952 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE

ing the aliens who want employment to
come across the border, to be employed
here, to receive good wages, and then to
see to it that they are returned to Mex¬
ico? Is not that the problem in a nut¬
shell?

Mr. ELLENDER. That is it.

Mr. CONN ALLY. Is it not correct to
say that the experience of our Govern¬
ment and of the people of the United
States demonstrate that when the so-
called wetbacks cross the border and are
employed in the United States and re¬
ceive many times the compensation they
would receive if they had remained in
Mexico, if something can be worked out
to guarantee their return to Mexico the
problem would be solved?

Mr. ELLENDER. That is correct.

Mr. CONNALLY. It is not so much
a question of letting them into the coun¬
try. Almost anybody could be per¬
mitted to come into the country if there
was the demand, and do no harm to
either government or either people, so
long as there was some assurance that
they would return to Mexico?

Mr. ELLENDER. That is correct.

Mr. CONNALLY. Could that prob¬
lem not be worked out by giving to each
one of the wetbacks a card or a certifi¬
cate of some kind when they entered the
country, which would identify them and
make it possible for the officers of the
law to detect them and thus see to it that
they returned to Mexico?

Mr. ELLENDER. That could be done.
As the Senator from Texas knows, the
border between Mexico and Texas is very
long, and it would require quite a num¬
ber of employees to check thoroughly on
all the Mexicans who cross it, and then
check again to see that they returned.

Mr. CONNALLY. The Government
has employees there now; does it not?

Mr. ELLENDER. Yes, but the method
the Senator suggests would require many
more employees. It is my belief that
more cooperation on the part of the Mex¬
ican Government in actually punishing
those who are guilty of crossing the
border illegally, would go a long way
toward solving the problem. The diffi¬
culty is that Mexico is putting on us the
entire burden of capturing and returning
illegal entrants.

Mr. CONNALLY. I agree with the
Senator from Louisiana that Mexico has
not been cooperative in a proper sense.
It is to Mexico’s advantage to have its
citizens come to the United States, get
good wages, and go home with money in
their pockets to spend in Mexico, rather
than to throw them in jail.

Mr. President, I dislike very much the
provisions in the bill with regard to mak¬
ing it a so-called crime to offer any in¬
ducements to such aliens, or harbor
them, or anything of that kind. That
point is greatly exaggerated. How can
we induce a Mexican to come across the
border when we are not in Mexico and we
do not know anything about the man
until he comes into the United States?
If he wants employment and an Ameri¬
can is able to pay him a good wage and
needs him for the work, why should we
not let him do the work and then carry
his earnings back to Mexico and spend

them there for the economy of Mexico,
rather than put him in jail?

I believe the committee has done ex¬
cellent work. They have been labori¬
ously toiling over the various measures
regarding all the aspects of the wet¬
back situation. However, I very much
deplore that the committee has found it
necessary to put into the bill the harsh
provisions that affect the citizens of my
State, of New Mexico, Arizona, and other
States. They are not limited to the
States I have mentioned.

Mr. CHAVEZ. Every State.

Mr. CONNALLY. Every State. It
would be possible to charge a man in
Montana with a violation of the act, and
he could be confined in a penitentiary,
although he would be a thousand miles
from the border. I regret that the Mex¬
ican Government has been so illiberal
and unsound and so lacking in apprecia¬
tion of the economic aspects of the ques¬
tion involved that they should disagree
with everything we want to do, except to
undertake to put someone in jail. I very
much regret that the committee found it
absolutely necessary to insert this pro¬
vision in the bill in order to get any ad¬
justment with Mexico.

Mr. ELLENDER. Under the present
law, which expires in December of this
year, our Government and the Govern¬
ment of Mexico entered into a contract.

Mr. CONNALLY. The Government of
Mexico, or the citizens of Mexico?

Mr. ELLENDER. The Mexican Gov¬
ernment. There is a contract between
the Governments. When we were in
Mexico City, in February of last year,
it was on the insistence of the President
of Mexico—and, of course, our own Pres¬
ident agreed to it—that the contract was
limited to only 6 months, although it
could have been made effective until De¬
cember 31 of this year.

Mr. CONNALLY. When does the act
expire?

Mr. ELLENDER. December 31 of this
year, 1952.

The point is that when the Senate
passed the original bill, it included the
so-called Douglas amendment. How¬
ever, when the bill reached the House,
the Douglas amendment was eliminated.
We tried in conference to retain the
amendment, but there was serious ob¬
jection, and the legislation was delayed.
However, the law as it now reads will
become inoperative, that is, the Mexican
Government will not agree to another
contract, unless the pending measure—
which is a very much modified form of
what the Senate approved when the orig¬
inal bill was enacted during the last ses¬
sion of Congress—is adopted.

Mr. CONNALLY. In other words, we
are letting Mexico dictate our policies; if
we do not do what Mexico wants nothing
will be done? That, in short, is the
statement of the Senator from Louisiana.

Mr. ELLENDER. They have request¬
ed it. Of course, the President of the
United States has also requested it.

Mr. CONNALLY. But it is a legisla¬
tive matter now.

Mr. ELLENDER. Yes, it is; but in
order to obtain the labor necessary to
harvest the coming crop I believe prob¬

807

ably the thing to do is to enact the bill,
in the hope that something better can
be worked out in the futu re.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there
objection to the present consideration of
the bill?

Mr. CHAVEZ. Insofar as the contract
is concerned, the law does not expire
until December, but the agreement be¬
tween Mexico and the United States ex¬
pires on the 11th of February.

Mr. CONNALLY. I do not understand
what the Senator means. I thought he
said the contract expired in December.

Mr. CHAVEZ. The law itself expires
in December. However, under the law
an agreement was entered into between
the United States and Mexico, and that
agreement expires on February 11. So
that after February 11 it will not be pos¬
sible to get the labor.

Mr. CONNALLY. Then, according to
the Senator’s statement, after the pres¬
ent agreement expires on February 11,
the old law will apply; is that correct?

Mr. CHAVEZ. That is correct, al¬
though then there would be a law, but
no agreement.

Mr. ELLENDER. The law provides
that the method of obtaining labor from
Mexico is by contract between the two
Governments, and the present agreement
is limited to 6 months, although it could
have been made effective until Decem¬
ber 31.

Mr. CONNALLY. My point is that
after February 11, when this agreement
expires, we shall go under the general
immigration law.

Mr. ELLENDER. That is correct. In
such event, there will not be any agree¬
ment and, in effect, no law on this sub¬
ject, except the one now in being, but
which, of course, requires a new agree¬
ment between the two Governments.

Mr. CONNALLY. However, if we have
no agreement, then we are relegated to
the existing immigration laws, under
which very few persons in this category
could enter the United States at all. Is
that correct?

_ Mr. ELLENDER. That is correct.

Mr. CONNALLY. Very well; I thank
the Senator.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is
there objection to the request for the
present consideration of the bill?

There being no objection, the Senate
proceeded to consider the bill (S. 1851)
to assist in preventing aliens from en¬
tering or remaining in the United States
illegally, which had been reported from
the Committee on the Judiciary with
an amendment.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The
amendment reported by the committee
will be stated.

The Chief Clerk. It is proposed to
strike out all after the enacting clause
and insert:

That section 8 of the Immigration Act of
1917 (39 Stat. 880; 8 U. S. C. 144), is hereby
amended to read:

“Sec. 8. (a) Any person, including the

owner, operator, pilot, master, commanding
officer, agent, or consignee of any means of
transportation who—

“(1) brings into or lands in the United
States, by any means of transportation cr
otherwise, or attempts, by himself or through

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE February 5

808

another, to bring into or land in the United
States, by any means of transportation or
otherwise;

“(2) knowing that he is in the United
States in violation of law, and knowing or
having reasonable grounds to believe that
his last entry into the United States oc¬
curred less than 3 years prior thereto, trans¬
ports, or moves, or attempts to transport or
move, within the United States by means of
transportation or otherwise, in furtherance
of such violation of law;

“(3) willfully or knowingly conceals, har¬
bors, or shields from detection, or attempts
to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection,
in any place, including any building or any
means of transportation; or

“(4) willfully or knowingly encourages or
induces, or attempts to encourage or induce,
either directly or indirectly, the entry into
the United States of any alien, including
an alien seaman, not duly admitted by an
immigration officer or not lawfully entitled
to enter or reside within the United States
under the terms of this act or any other law
relating to the immigration or expulsion of
aliens, shall be guilty of a felony, and upon
conviction thereof shall be punished by a
fine not exceeding $2,000 or by imprison¬
ment for a term not exceeding 5 years, or
both, for each alien in respect to whom any
violation of this subsection occurs: Provided,
however. That for the purposes of this sec¬
tion, employment (including the usual and
normal practices incident to employment)
shall not be deemed to constitute harbor¬
ing.

“(b) No officer or person shall have au¬
thority to make any arrest for a violation
of any provision of this section except officers
and employees of the United States Immi¬
gration and Naturalization Service designated
by the Attorney General, either individually
or as a member of a class, and all other
officers of the United States whose duty it
is to enforce criminal laws.

“(c) When the Attorney General or any
district director or any assistant district di¬
rector of the Immigration and Naturalization
Service has information indicating a rea¬
sonable probability that in any designated
lands or other property aliens are illegally
within the United States, he may issue his
warrant authorizing the immigration officer
named therein to go upon or within such
designated lands or other property other than
a dwelling in which the warrant states there
may be aliens illegally within the United
States, for the purpose of interrogating such
aliens concerning their right to enter or to
be or remain in the United States. Such
warrant shall state therein the time of day
or night for its use and the period of its
validity which in no case shall be for more
than 30 days.”

Sec. 2. The last proviso to the paragraph
headed “Bureau of Immigration” in title IV
of the act of February 27, 1925 (43 Stat. 1049;
8 U. S. C. 110), as amended by the act of
August 7, 1946 (60 Stat. 865), is hereby fur¬
ther amended so that clause numbered (2)
shall read;

“(2) within a reasonable distance from
any external boundary of the United States,
to board and search for aliens any vessels
within the territorial waters of the United
States and any railway car, aircraft, convey¬
ance, or vehicle, and within a distance of
25 miles from any such external boundary
to have access to private lands, but not dwell¬
ings, for the purpose of patrolling the bor¬
der to prevent the illegal entry of aliens
into the United States, and.”

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. With¬
out objection, the amendment is agreed
to.

Without objection, the bill is passed.
Mr. DOUGLAS. Oh, Mr, Presi¬
dent—

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The
Chair begs the pardon of the Senator
from Illinois, and withdraws the state¬
ment about the passage of the bill.

Mr. DOUGLAS. Thank you, Mr. Pres¬
ident, for the announcement was made
quite rapidly.

Mr. President, we know that enormous
numbers of so-called wetbacks enter the
United States illegally every year.

Mr. Gladwin Hill, who made an in¬
vestigation of this matter for the New
York Times, last year estimated that be¬
tween 500,000 and 1,000,000 Mexicans
crossed the border in this way in a single
year.

The Senate Agriculture Committee
placed the number at more than a million
in its report on S. 984 last year and con¬
ceded the importance of this illegal im¬
migration.

We know also some of the effects of
this large migration. The presence of
this large number of Mexican laborers
who enter our country illegally serves to
keep down the wages of American farm
workers. Furthermore, since these per¬
sons enter the United States illegally,
we know that they are at the mercy of
their employers, because their employers
can turn them over to the authorities at
any time and can have them deported.
And, therefore, the workers are forced to
accept low wages and not very good
working conditions.

I believe we must deal with this ques¬
tion much more vigorously than the
committee has done, although I wish to
pay tribute to the committee for acting
to improve the present situation. The
committee has voted to tighten up the
prohibitions and penalties against trans¬
porting wetbacks illegally into the
United States and harboring wetbacks,
but the committee proposes a specific
exemption for employment. It specifi¬
cally provides that employment shall
not constitute harboring. In other
words, under the committee proposal it
is not illegal for an employer knowingly
and willfully to hire a wetback who has
illegally entered the United States.

Mr. KILGORE. Mr. President, will
the Senator from Illinois yield to me?

Mr. DOUGLAS. I yield.

Mr. KILGORE. I think the Senator
from Illinois misinterprets the bill,
which provides that the employment it¬
self shall not constitute harboring. If it
can be proved that an employer know¬
ingly and willfully has permitted such a
person to enter the United States, the
bill provides that a penalty shall be
imposed.

Mr. DOUGLAS. Very well; then I
wish to have the Senate adopt an
amendment to cover that point of em¬
ployment, and to the committee amend¬
ment I shall submit my amendment and
send it to the desk and ask that it be
stated and considered.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore.
Without objection, the action previously
taken by the Senate on the committee
amendment will be reconsidered, and the
committee amendment is now before the
Senate.

The amendment submitted by the
Senator from Illinois to the committee
amendment will be stated.

The Chief Clerk, On page 5 of the
committee amendment, between lines 17
and 18, it is proposed to insert the
following:

(d) Any person who shall employ any
Mexican alien not duly admitted by an im¬
migration officer or not lawfully entitled to
enter or to reside within the United States
under the terms of this act or any other
law relating to the immigration or expul¬
sion of aliens, when such person knows or
has reasonable grounds to believe or suspect
or by reasonable inquiry could have ascer¬
tained that such alien is not lawfully within
the United States, or any person who, having
employed such an alien without knowing or
having reasonable grounds to believe or sus¬
pect that such alien is unlawfully within
the United States and who could not have
obtained such information by reasonable in¬
quiry at the time of giving such employ¬
ment, shall obtain information during the
course of such employment indicating that
such alien is not lawfully within the United
States and shall fail to report such informa¬
tion promptly to an immigration officer, shall
be guilty of a felony, and upon conviction
thereof shall be punished by a fine not ex¬
ceeding $2,000, or by imprisonment for a
term not exceeding 1 year, or both, for each
alien in respect to whom any violation of
this section occurs.

Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, this is
the precise language of the amendment
adopted last year by the Senate.

Mr. McFARLAND. Mr. President, will
the Senator from Illinois yield to me?

Mr. DOUGLAS. I am very glad to
yield.

Mr. McFARLAND. I hope the Sena¬
tor from Illinois will not offer the amend¬
ment.

Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, I have
already offered the amendment to the
committee amendment, and I hope my
amendment to the committee amend¬
ment will be accepted.

Mr". McFARLAND. I may state to my
distinguished friend from Illinois that
this amendment to the committee
amendment presents a highly contro¬
versial question. There are those who
honestly believe that the amendment
proposed by the Senator from Illinois
to the committee amendment would
make the proposed law too strict.

On the other hand, the bill before the
Senate is proposed as stopgap legisla¬
tion to enable the farmers to obtain the
needed labor for another 6 months. If
at the time for the renewal of the law
in regard to the use of this labor, the
Senator from Illinois wishes to submit
his amendment, that will be a different
proposition. But what will happen if
the amendment is insisted upon at this
time? The committee has worked a long
time in preparing a compromise bill, but
the bill cannot be passed by us today if
it includes the amendment the Senator
from Illinois has submitted to the com¬
mittee amendment, because there will be
considerable debate on that subject.
The bill was taken up by the Senate to¬
day with the understanding, of course,
that it would be passed as it is and that
there would not be a great deal of con¬
troversy.

On the other hand, if we throw open
to debate the subject matter of the
amendment proposed by the Senator
from Illinois to the committee amend¬
ment, and if we thus bring on the con-

CONGRESSIONAL 1 RECORD—SENATE 809

1952

troversy which has existed for the last
6 months, the result will be that the
United States may not obtain the im¬
portant fiber and food which are needed
in order that our defense efforts may
proceed successfully.

Mr. President, everyone must at least
agree that this bill constitutes a step
forward, and that those who have worked
on the bill, including the Department
of Labor, the Department of Agricul¬
ture, and the various agriculture or¬
ganizations, have done what they think
is best under the circumstances.

It would be unfortunate to throw this
subject into controversy after the de¬
partments and farm organizations have
agreed upon the language and after the
Judiciary Committee made a unanimous
recommendation that it pass as reported.
As I stated before, time is important and
I am hopeful we may act promptly and
not in this one bill try to cure all defects
in our immigration laws.

Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, the
language contained in my amendment
to the committee amendment is noth¬
ing new. It is the precise language
which was adopted last year by the Sen¬
ate itself, when the question was fully
discussed and when the Senate reached
agreement that the penalties should be
made to apply not only to those who
transport such labor illegally, not only
to those who conceal or harbor such
labor illegally, but also to those who em¬
ploy that labor which has entered this
country illegally. I may say this Is the
real test and the real milk in the coco¬
nut. This will actually determine
whether we are to have a really effective
law or whether we are to have no law
at all.

So I am proposing in this amendment
to the committee amendment only what
the Senate itself did last year. And I
hope the Senate may without delay
adopt this proposal again.

It is true that the amendment was
eliminated in conference last year; but
during the course of the debate on the
amendment, the Senator from Louisiana
pledged, that he was thoroughly in
agreement with the principle it in¬
volves. I read from page 4539 of the
daily issue of the Congressional Record
for last year, or page 4427 of the perma¬
nent Record for April 26, 1951:

Mr. President, I wish to state that in
order to further assist in connection with
the wetback problem, and in conformity
with the promise which I made to many
members of the Mexican delegation that I
would sponsor a bill to make it a punish¬
able offense for an American employer
knowingly to employ an alien illegally in
this country, such a bill was prepared and
introduced by me today.

The point is that whenever this issue
comes up, it is said that now is not the
time to dispose of it, but it should be
considered at some other time. I sub¬
mit that now is the time, when we are
dealing with this bill. So I hope very
much the Judiciary Committee and the
Senate will accept the amendment, so as
to reaffirm the strong position the Sen¬
ate itself took last year.

Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, will
the Senator from Illinois yield to me?

Mr. DOUGLAS. I am glad to yield
to the Senator from Minnesota.

Mr. HUMPHREY. My reason for
questioning the advisability of bringing
up this bill at this time was because of
the situation to which the Senator has
directed his remarks. As I stated a few
moments ago on this floor, it was the
Senator from Illinois who proposed the
amendment which he now reoffers, and
all of us recall that it was hotly debated,
and it was finally voted upon and ac¬
cepted by the Senate.

I pointed out in my discussion of this
bill, which is hot off the press, so to
speak, with no report on it before the
Members of the Senate—which is a most
incredible situation—that the proviso
which is contained in it is a limiting
proviso. The wetback problem is not
one which is produced as a result of peo¬
ple getting Mexicans on a train or bus
and bringing them across the border.
The wetback problem is exactly what it
implies—they walk across the river.

Mr. DOUGLAS. That is correct.

Mr. HUMPHREY. They walk across
the Rio Grande, come into the United
States, and are lost in the population of
the United States. The Senator from
Illinois is eminently correct when he
says, No. 1, that this depresses the local
labor market, and, No. 2, it provides an
avenue of employer blackmail. All an
employer need say is, “If you do not
like the working conditions and the pay,
I will report you,” and under this bill the
wetback could be deported. But, fur¬
ther than that, and which I think is the
real crux of this situation, it provides for
human degradation. There is a time at
hand when we must put a stop to this
thing, and the wetback problem is the
No. 1 problem which faces the country
today in terms of illegal entries. It is a
problem which is unique to the South¬
west. It is a problem which has caused
great confusion in agricultural employ¬
ment throughout America.

I may say to my friend, the Senator
from Illinois, that the growers in my
own State, meeting with me on the
eighth day of January, told me that if
the wetback problem was not ended,
they could not possibly compete in the
agricultural market, because it is re¬
quired in my State that all children at¬
tend school; there are prevailing certain
social standards which are enforced by
the State government, and wetbacks
coming in depress the conditions, and
make it completely impossible for the
growers who are trying to operate legit¬
imately to operate at all. I submit the
time is at hand to consider the amend¬
ment which the Senator from Illinois
offers. It has been voted upon once,
and accepted by the Senate, with the
same Members of the Senate, with the
exception of the one who has replaced
the distinguished late minority leader,
and, with the same exception, every
Senator has heard the debate. The
Record is filled with debate. It seems
to me that the least that can be done is
for the Senate to reassert its position.
If the House finds that it cannot go
along with us, that is another matter;
but the fact is that we should reassert
the original position which we took;

and the time to do it is now, because we
have before us a bill which deals directly
with the wetback problem. I know of
the keen interest of the Senator from
Illinois in this problem. I intend to
support him and I am glad he offered his
amendment. That is exactly what I
wanted him to do.

Mr. McFARLAND. Mr. President,
will the Senator yield?

Mr. DOUGLAS. I yield.

Mr. McFARLAND. I agree with the
distinguished Senator from Minnesota
that the Senate adopted this precise lan¬
guage a year ago; but what did we ac¬
complish? The bill went to the House,
and agreement on a labor bill was not
reached until this provision was elimi¬
nated. The pending bill has been
worked out by all of the interested par¬
ties, and I believe a law on the subject
can be enacted at this time if we will
merely reject this amendment. I hope
the Senate will reject it. I voted for a
similar amendment a year ago when
the Mexican labor bill was before the
Senate, with the thought that inequities,
if any, would be corrected in conference,
but the House rejected that amendment
in its entirety. One must take what he
can get once in a while in life, instead
of insisting upon getting everything he
wants. I have not been in the habit of
getting everything I wanted, and so I
have usually contented myself with get¬
ting what I could and doing the best I
could. I think that is what the Senate
should do at this time.

Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?

Mr. DOUGLAS. I yield. .. ^

Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, I
direct my remarks to the position taken
by the majority leader, which I know is
his sincere position. He wants, as does
the Senator from Minnesota, to get legis¬
lation in this field because it is impor¬
tant, as has been pointed out by the
Senator from Louisiana and by the Sen¬
ator from West Virginia [Mr. Kilgore],

All I am saying is that the process of
legislation includes passage of a bill by
the two Houses. It also includes, gener¬
ally speaking, a conference. There is no
intent on our part to delay legislation,
but I do not think it would be shooting
for the sky or shooting for the moon or
constitute an unattainable objective if
the Senate would restate and reassert
what it has already indicated to be its
deliberate judgment after full debate in
the Eighty-second Congress.

No hearings were held on this bill.
Mr. President, there is no report on this
bill. The hearings which have been held
on this particular measure were held by
debate on the Senate floor, and, as a re¬
sult of that debate, it was the considered
judgment of the majority of the United
States Senate at the first session of the
Eighty-second Congress that the amend¬
ment to which the Senator from Illinois
now points, and which he resubmits,
should become the public law. That was
lost in the House and, as a result of the
conference, a bill came from conference
with the amendment of the Senator from
Illinois deleted. I submit it would be a
basic retreat on the part of the Senate to
accede to the defeat which it took in

810

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE

February 5

conference. At least, the Senate can
stand up to say that it wants the bill
passed, with proper application to wet¬
backs. The Senate acted correctly at
the last session, and the problem is no
less today than it was a year ago. As
a matter of fact, that is borne out by the
testimony offered this morning by Arch¬
bishop Lucey and by Dr. Fuller, of the
University of California. The Depart¬
ment of Agriculture this morning also
presented testimony to the effect that the
wetback problem in 1951 was worse than
in 1950, and that it was expected to be
worse in 1952. Under those conditions
and in view of the testimony presented
by eminent citizens of this country be¬
fore a committee of the Congress within
2 hours from the time we now debate
the bill, the evidence is on the side of
the Senator from Illinois, and there is no
reasonable argument which can be ad¬
vanced to show that his amendment
should not be adopted now when it was
adopted a year ago at a time when the
evidence was less convincing. I submit
that, if we are to have legislation, there
is a good way to get it, and that is to
accept the amendment proposed by the
Senator from Illinois, and to fight it
out in the House of Representatives.
Neither the Senator from Illinois nor
the Senator from Minnesota has tried to
block conference reports, but we do feel
that we have a right to state our posi¬
tion in the body of which we are Mem¬
bers, and to fight for what we think is
an attainable objective. Again I say the
amendment of the Senator from Illinois
should be adopted and included in this
bill.

Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, will the
Senator from Illinois yield?

Mr. DOUGLAS. I yield.

Mr. AIKEN. The Senator from Illi¬
nois was not on the floor when I raised
a question in connection with bringing
up the bill; that is, why not have it
apply equally to all types of aliens? I
notice that the amendment offered by
the Senator from Illinois applies only to
Mexicans. I was wondering why it
should not apply to Europeans, Asiatics,
South Americans, South Pacific aliens,
and all others.

Mr. DOUGLAS. I may say to the Sen¬
ator from Vermont that this language
was adopted last year, because we were
dealing specifically with Mexican im¬
migrants, and this bill is now being
urged in order to help bring about more
effective policing of illegal entrants on
the Mexican border and more acceptable
operations under the agreement with the
Government of Mexico. Therefore, since
the treaty which this bill is intended to
affect deals with Mexicans, we thought
the amendment should deal with Mexi¬
can labor.

Mr. AIKEN. But does the Senator
think we can discriminate constitution¬
ally against the aliens of one particular
nation, or the employers of the aliens
from one particular nation? As I under¬
stand, many Mexican wetbacks who are
first employed on farms, later leave the
farms and go into the cities. I think
the remedy is not to apply the law to
Mexican wetbacks alone who are on
farms, but to have a law applicable to

all aliens who are illegally in the coun¬
try, and to all employers of aliens, re¬
gardless of the countries from which
the aliens come.

Mr. DOUGLAS. I may say to my good
friend from Vermont that that was the
original nature of my amendment of
last year. Objection was raised that it
would be difficult to ascertain, for in¬
stance, whether Canadians who crossed
the line were legally or illegally in this
country. In order to remove that ob¬
jection, I consented to the insertion of
the term “Mexican.” But if the Sena¬
tor from Vermont is solicitous about the
subject, we shall expand it to include
all of them. I welcome his support,
therefore, for the amendment as a
whole.

Mr. AIKEN. I think it should include
all of them, I may say to the Senator
from Illinois, but I know of no instances
of illegal employment of Canadians, al¬
though there may have been some. Cer¬
tainly it is not common. I think prob¬
ably more aliens may be in this coun¬
try from other countries of the world
illegally than from Canada.

Mr. DOUGLAS. If it will satisfy the
Senator from Vermont, I shall be glad
to modify my amendment to strike out
the word “Mexican” in the second line
so that the provision will apply to any¬
one illegally admitted.

I hope that having jumped out of the
frying pan to please the Senator from
Vermont I shall not be pushed upon the
roasting fire.

Mr. AIKEN. I thank the Senator
from Illinois for modifying his amend¬
ment, which I think improves it greatly,
although I shall read and study it be¬
fore I promise to fight for or against it.

Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr. President, I
was not present when the Senator from
Illinois offered his amendment, but I am
familiar with the conferences and the
discussions which led up to the bill. It
was originally my own bill, and it then
became the bill of the Senator from West
Virginia [Mr. Kilgore] and myself, and
finally the bill of the Senator from Mis¬
sissippi. Several departments of the
Government, including the Immigration
Service, foreign labor-management
groups, the cooperatives, and several
others, agreed upon its provisions.

The only reason, as I recall, for the
absence of language similar to that
which the Senator from Illinois now pre¬
sents, which was contained in my origi¬
nal bill, was that a problem might arise,
for instance, in California, where on a
truck farm of 300 or 400 acres a great
number of cheap laborers might be em¬
ployed, and the employer would have to
rely upon the contractor who transports
the laborers in a truck. It might cause
a hardship where great numbers come
in trucks, and the employer, under the
language of the Senator’s amendment,
might be in technical violation of the
law and technically guilty of a felony.
I wonder if the Senator believes that the
employer would be protected under the
language of the amendment. That
question might be brought up as a prac¬
tical matter.

Mr. DOUGLAS. The language of the
amendment provides that it shall apply

only if the employer wilfully and know¬
ingly violates the law, or if he has rea¬
sonable grounds for believing that an
alien has illegally entered or by reason¬
able inquiry could have ascertained that
fact.

Mr. MAGNUSON. But does it not also
place the burden of inquiry upon the
employer to make ascertainment of the
fact?

Mr. DOUGLAS. I think under my
amendment he should make a reason¬
able effort to ascertain the fact.

Mr. MAGNUSON. It would be very
difficult for a large employer of this type
of labor to do that. He might have,a
crop which he has to harvest in 3 or 4
days. He might have to triple or quad¬
ruple his normal employment. He would
have no time to find out.

Mr. DOUGLAS. It would be a simple
thing, as the men come in, for the straw
boss to examine them.

Mr. MAGNUSON. Let me ask a fur¬
ther question. Is it the Senator’s opinion
that under the terms of his amendment
if something similar to that were done
it would constitute a reasonable inquiry?

Mr. DOUGLAS. Yes, certainly.

Mr. MAGNUSON. I wanted to clear
that up, because the question may come
up later.

Mr. CORDON. Mr. President, will the
Senator from Illinois yield?

Mr. DOUGLAS. I yield to the Senator
from Oregon.

Mr. CORDON. I just had occasion to
make a personal examination of the
amendment of the Senator from Illinois.
In my opinion, the bill which is pending
is little more than a gesture. There are
two questions which bother me. In the
first place, there is a requirement on the
part of an employer to make an exam¬
ination over and above the information
he would have available to him when he
sought to employ a given individual. I
should like to see an amendment that
would limit its scope to two propositions:
First, that the employer knew that the
alien was unlawfully in this country or
that there was reasonable ground to be¬
lieve that he was unlawfully in this coun¬
try, and stop there. Then there would
be the basic requirement of knowledge on
the part of the employer, which certainly
ought to be adequate to justify the im¬
position of criminal punishment.

Second, that the employer had infor¬
mation which would afford reasonable
ground for believing that the individual
was unlawfully within the United States.

Would the Senator consider modifying
his amendment to exclude the affirma¬
tive requirement of investigation, to re¬
lieve the employer of the requirement to
become affirmatively a policeman there¬
after?

Mr. DOUGLAS. I shall be very glad
to accept such a change in language.

Mr. CORDON. With those changes I
think the amendment offered by the
Senator ought to go into the bill, and
then we shall have teeth in it for the
first time.

Mr. DOUGLAS. I shall be glad to
work out such a change in phraseology.

Mr. McFARLAND. Mr. President,
will the Senator from Illinois yield?

1952

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE

811

Mr. DOUGLAS. I yield, but I hope I
do not have to make any further con¬
cession.

Mr. McFARLAND. The colloquy
which just occurred shows that it is not
practicable to try to write legislation
on the floor of the Senate.

What is a reasonable inquiry? Who
is going to decide what is a reasonable
inquiry?

Mr. DOUGLAS. I have eliminated the
words “reasonable inquiry.”

Mr. McFARLAND. It is not prac¬
ticable to work out legislation of this
kind in a moment. The committee has
brought in a compromise bill, and I hope
the Senate will agree to it.

Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, I have
already moved that in line 2 of my
amendment the word “Mexican” be
eliminated. I now modify my amend¬
ment so that the provision for an in¬
quiry on the part of the employer be
eliminated, letting the remainder of the
amendment stand.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on agreeing to the amend¬
ment, as modified, offered by the Senator
from Illinois. [Putting the question.]
The “noes” seem to have it.

Mr. DOUGLAS. I suggest the ab¬
sence of a quorum. _

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
clerk will call the roll.

The Chief Clerk called the roll, and the

following

Senators answered to their

names:

Aiken

Hennings

Millikin

Anderson

Hill

Monroney

Bennett

Hoey

Moody

Brewster

Holland

Morse

Bricker

Humphrey

Mundt

Bridges

Hunt

Murray

Butler, Md.

Ives

Neely

Byrd

Jenner

Nixon

Cain

Johnson, Colo.

O’Conor

Capehart

Johnson, Tex.

O’Mahoney

Case

Johnston, S. C.

Pastore

Chavez

Kefauver

Robertson

Clements

Kem

Russell

Connally

Kilgore

Saltonstall

Cordon

Knowland

Smathers

Douglas

Langer

Smith, Maine

Duff

Lehman

Smith, N. J.

Dworshak

Lodge

Smith, N. C.

Eastland

Long

Sparkman

Ecton

Magnuson

Stennis

Ellender

Malone

Taft

Ferguson

Martin

Thye

Flanders

Maybank

Tobey

Frear

McCarran

Underwood

Fulbright

McCarthy

Watkins

George

McClellan

Welker

Gillette

McFarland

Williams

Green

Hendrickson

McKellar

McMahon

Young

The PRESIDING OFFICER. A quo¬
rum is present.

. c aptTkurtTi^arlsen

\ Mr. HUNT, Mr. President, for the in¬
formation of the Members of the Senate
as well as that of the galleries, I am
very much pleased to say that we have
with us in. the gallery a very distin¬
guished hero In the person of Capt. Kurt
Carlsen of the iilH&t&d'Flying Enterprise.
I am wondering if- the captain will be
kind enough to rise so .that we may all
see him.

(Captain Carlsen rose and was greeted
with applause.)

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Erear
in the chair). We are very glad to have
Captain Carlsen with us today.'

j IMPORTANCE OP MANGANESE AND
! CHROMITE IN THE DEFENSE PROGRAM

Mr. ECTON. Mr. President, I shall
take bilt a few minutes of the Senate’s
time to call attention to a very vital
problem concerned with the defense of
America.

Defense Mobilization Director Charles
E. Wilson recently called attention to the
accomplishments of his organization in
the expansion program for production of
essential materials. At the same time
he ' warned that production facilities
would soon feel the lack of certain raw
materials.

I know that the Members of the Sen¬
ate realize, as well as does any govern¬
ment agency, that the ability of this Na¬
tion to resist any foreign power or com¬
bination of powers depends upon ready
sources of raw materials as well as it
does upon our manpower and economic
strength.

Our great steel industry, for example,
cannot produce the kind of steel neces¬
sary for today’s defense equipment with¬
out manganese and chromite. These
two items mean more to us, in a defensive
sense, than all the gold stored at Fort
Knox. Yet, today we depend upon
foreign production for approximately 90
percent of the 2,000,000-plus tons of
manganese and chromite so necessary
for steel production.

Leaders of Nazi Germany attribute
their defeat in some measure to the lack
of sufficient manganese, although their
source of supply was much closer than
ours is today. Our air and naval forces
cut off that supply to a great extent.

We cannot even estimate the real price
America paid for our supplies of manga¬
nese and chromite during World War II.
The bonuses, the loss of life, and the
shipping tonnage sent to the bottom of
the sea by Hitler’s submarines during our
efforts to import sufficient amounts of
those raw materials are beyond calcu¬
lation.

Fortunately, we did overcome that
costly handicap before it was too late.
In the meantime, we made frantic and
costly efforts to speed up American pro¬
duction of manganese and chrome, but
we regained control of the sea lanes be¬
fore our own production totaled more
than one-eighth or one-tenth of our
needs.

In my own State of Montana the Gov¬
ernment spent about. $25,000,000 in fa¬
cilities to produce chromite. But that
required time, and the 50,000 tons of
concentrates produced stand today in a
pile near the scene of operation. We are
still paying rent for the space it occupies.
The production facilities were sold at
the customary insignificant war-surplus
prices.

We might not overcome shipping trou¬
bles as quickly next time we become
engaged in total war. Again haste will
make waste without quick production,
and this could mean national disaster.

It requires 12 to 14 pounds of manga¬
nese for each ton of steel. Our needs
are approximately 2,000,000 pounds of
manganese per year. Montana alone
furnishes approximately 10 percent of
that total, and that 10 percent consti¬

tutes about 90 percent of America’s total
production of this critically short item.

Several other States have manganese
deposits. However, in one county in
Montana is located the largest deposit
of chromite in America.

It is many months since Russia cut
off its shipments of manganese to Amer¬
ica. It is quite willing to load us up
with furs and even gold in exchange for
our dollars or machines; but ws can
buy no manganese or other strategic
materials from the Soviet.

Russia is also said to have more than
300 modern snorkel submarines. We
know something of what German sub¬
marines did to allied shipping in 6 years
of war. Are we to stake our entire fu¬
ture on the daring, courage, and
strength of our merchant marine? For
without capacity steel production we are
almost defenseless. To ignore these
facts is to invite total disaster.

I am somewhat disturbed by the lack
of attention given to the development
and maintenance of vigorous, healthy
production of these two very strategic
materials—manganese and chromite.
We are now dipping heavily into our
stockpiles and we have not yet actually
begun to really mobilize. Our greatest
weapons for defense of this Nation are
still mere figures and drawings on the
draftsmen’s tables.

The steel industry is greatly expand¬
ing its production facilities. That
means we must have still more manga¬
nese and chrome than we are using now.
A shortage of these raw materials ren¬
ders greater steel facilities impotent.

I seriously urge the Congress and the
Office of Defense Mobilization to give
greater consideration to the possible
sudden loss of our foreign source of sup¬
ply of manganese and chromite.

American dollars are now supporting
development of the resources and in¬
dustries of Europe, Asia, and Africa, and
there is little doubt that large sums that
we have contributed have gone into de¬
velopment of these strategic metals in
those countries beyond the seas. That,
I may say, is at least a wiser expendi¬
ture than many we have made abroad,
especially if the world were at peace.

But the world is not at peace and
prospects for that happy state of affairs
are dim at this time. Moreover, our
foreign sources of those raw materials
might fall into unfriendly hands.

We appropriated large sums of money
to develop synthetic rubber. Now we
are practically independent as far as
rubber is concerned. We have set up
programs for the development of sup¬
plies of tungsten, mercury, telluride,
uranium, and other necessary materials.

I have every reason to believe a similar
program for the Production of manga¬
nese and chromite would, within a rea¬
sonable time, make us independent of
foreign sources of those metals.

No appropriation for such purpose has
ever been denied since I came to the Sen¬
ate, and certainly none was denied im¬
mediately preceding or during World
War II.

The limited program of facilities set
up more than 3 years ago is a start in the

No. 18-3

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE

812

ri^ht direction, but the capacity of facil¬
ities at Grants Pass, Oreg., Butte and
Philipsburg, Mont., are entirely in¬
adequate.

It requires large capital to develop
production of manganese and chromite,
as our deposits are not high grade. Pres¬
ent facilities for processing the ore do
not warrant the investment required to
produce on a scale commensurate with
our needs. However, we still have sev¬
eral small and independent producers in
several States, but the restrictions gov¬
erning grade and price prohibit the oper¬
ation of these independent mines. A few
years ago there were about 130 such pro¬
ducers. Today there are about one
dozen. They cannot compete with the
importer who buys higher grade concen¬
trates produced by cheap labor of Asia,
Africa, and Europe.

I believe it is imperative that a broad
policy be laid down by the Office of De¬
fense Mobilization to remove the risk
that we face in the event our imports
may suddenly be cut off. Technical min¬
ing and metallurgical problems must be
overcome because of our lower-grade do¬
mestic supply. American ingenuity can
and will overcome these difficulties with
the proper incentive and cooperation.

If top mobilization officials will give
the manganese and chromite industry a
program such as now prevails for tung¬
sten and other strategic materials, we
can be assured that our dependence on
importations will be reduced to the mini¬
mum, and we shall have created a do¬
mestic industry that will benefit all in¬
dustry and add immeasurably to our na¬
tional security.

We must not place too much reliance
in, nor remain shackled to, foreign
sources of supply when that risk is en¬
tirely unnecessary.

NINETEEN-TEAR PATTERN OF FREE TRADE

Mr. MALONE. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?

Mr. ECTON. I am very happy to yield
to the Senator from Nevada.

Mr. MALONE. I should like to ask the
distinguished Senator from Montana if
he is aware of the pattern, which has
existed for the last 19 years, of buying
and importing strategic and critical min¬
erals and materials from foreign sources
and drying up our own sources of supply
through a long-range policy of free
trade, as the result of which no protec¬
tion is given to the labor or to the in¬
vestors of this country from, as the
Senator from Montana so ably said, the
sweatshop and slave labor of Europe and
Asia? -

Mr. ECTON. I will say to the dis¬
tinguished Senator from Nevada that I
have been aware of that policy, and I
believe all of us who come from mining
States know that it has practically
wrecking the mining industry in the
Western States.

At this time, when we are faced with
the possibility of an all-out world war,
we find ourselves primarily dependent
upon foreign importations for some of
the most strategic metals known to man
in the manufacture of essential steel.

SEVENTY-FIVE PERCENT OF MINES CLOSED

Mr. MALONE. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield further? »

Mr. ECTON. I am glad to yield fur¬
ther.

Mr. MALONE. I know that the Sen¬
ator from Montana is aware of the fact
that 75 percent of the mines in the
United States have been closed since the
end of World War n because of the oper¬
ation of that same free trade policy.
However, is the Senator aware that not
only has the mining industry suffered,
but that the textile, crockery, and pre¬
cision industries, and the manufacturers
of all those things without which we can¬
not live in peace or war, are in the same
category, and that all those industries
have been sold down the river by the
operation of the same policy?

Mr. ECTON. Yes, I realize all that.

It is hard to list the specific industries
which are affected, because all of them
are affected, both directly and indirectly,
and at the present time we certainly are
faced with a situation which makes us
consider with fear and trembling what
may happen overnight to our country.

Mr. MALONE. Mr. President, if the
Senator from Montana will yield fur¬
ther, let me ask whether he is aware
that we were importing about a million
barrels of oil a day, and as a result the
oil wells were closing on account of the
rationing of the production of oil
throughout the Texas and California
fields, a policy which was inaugurated
before the President started his police
action in Korea and began to buy all the
oil and all the strategic materials he
could get. Is the Senator aware that
even before Korea the oil industry was
being curtailed?

Mr. ECTON. Yes, I am aware of that
fact. If the present situation continues,
we might find ourselves in the same posi¬
tion with respect to oil that we are in
with respect to strategic materials, if it
were not for the fact that in the past
year American oil companies, wild¬
catters, and independenets have sucess-
fully discovered an entirely new field.
I refer to the large field which was
opened in North Dakota and Montana,
and I think it will help us in this situa¬
tion.

Mr. MALONE. Mr. President, if the
Senator from Montana will yield fur¬
ther, I wish to congratulate him upon
the statement he has just made.

I know he will agree with me that it
is most important that we maintain the
incentive for wildcatting in oil explora¬
tion and the prospecting and explora¬
tion in connection with mineral pro¬
duction and the incentive for the in¬
vestment of private capital in the textile
business, the crockery business, and
other businesses, and the incentive for
further investments by stockholders, so
as to persuade the American people to
engage in new developments and new
explorations for minerals, oil, and other
products. Is not that true?

Mr. ECTON. I certainly believe it is
true. As the Senator from Nevada well
knows, I agree with him that if our coun¬

February 5

try is to remain great, we must preserve
that incentive, not only in the case of in¬
vestors but also in the case of the opera¬
tors and the laboring men who work in
those industries. If we are to destroy
completely every incentive, by means of
free trade, low cost competition, and
higher taxes, the time will soon come
when there will not be anyone at work
in productive or other fields in our great
land.

Mr. MALONE. Mr. President, will the
Senator from Montana yield further to
me?

Mr. ECTON. I yield.

Mr. MALONE. Then is it not a fact
that from the time when we adopted the
so-called reciprocal trade theory and
placed the authority to determine tariff
and import fee rates in the hands of a
Secretary of State, who has no more
knowledge of what makes industry feasi¬
ble than a hog has about holy water, and
from the time when Congress washed
its hands of that responsibility, although
it is the constitutional responsibility of
the Congress to regulate foreign trade,
w T e acted to lower the standard of living
in the United States?

Mr. ECTON. I believe the Senator
from Nevada has put his finger on a date
which may have been the dividing line.
I am not prepared to say definitely
.whether it was, but I think we can say
definitely that unless we look after our
own industry and our own people and
our own country, any sensible person
must come to the conclusion that no
one else in the world will do so.

FAIR AND REASONABLE COMPETITION

Mr. MALONE. Mr. President, if the
Senator from Montana will yield fur¬
ther, I would add to the fine statement
he has made, by saying that the only way
we can do that is by having a floor under
wages and investments, sometimes called
a tariff or import fee of a flexible nature,
so as to provide for the differential be¬
tween the wage-living standard in the
United States and that abroad, so there
will be a floor under those costs, with
the result that when the emergency is
over—of course, I hope it will be over in
ihe near future, for now we have had 19
years of emergencies—and when normal
competition exists once more, the work¬
ingmen and workingwomen of the United
State ifoll know that we are operating on
a basis of fair and reasonable competi¬
tion to preserve their investments. Is not
that the onlyvway by which we can main¬
tain fair and reasonable competition and
preserve the incentive of our people to
work and invest their money?

Mr. ECTON. I'Relieve it is. It does
not make sense to me to have our Gov¬
ernment pay foreign Importers a higher
price for strategic minerals and metals
and materials than the price paid to
domestic producers of the same com¬
modities. Such a procedure simply does
not make sense to me.

Mr. MALONE. I agree most heartily
with the Senator from Montana. Let me
ask him whether he is aware that at
this time, in the case of several of the
minerals, we are paying the foreign pro-

1952

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE

813

ducer a higher unit price—for instance,
in the case of copper, lead, zinc, and
many of the other strategic minerals—
than we are paying to American pro¬
ducers of those minerals, on whom we
place a ceiling price which is relatively
low.

We gift-loan to foreign countries
money to enable them to outbid us in
the world market for these same mate¬
rials, and those countries are not subject
to any ceiling price. However, at this
moment the price of copper is being
bandied about in Europe at from 50 to 60
cents a pound, and the price of zinc at
between 25 and 30 cents a pound, where¬
as in the United States there is a ceiling
of 24 V 2 cents a pound on copper and a
ceiling of 18 cents a pound on zinc,
thanks to the action taken the other day
by the Senate, which set that price as a
ceiling for domestic producers, who have
to pay their employees anywhere from
$11 to $15 a day, whereas foreign labor
is paid anywhere from 50 cents to $3 or
$4 a day. They are paying these prices
on our gift-loans of billions of dollars to
them.

Under such circumstances I certainly
agree that it does not make sense for
■the Senate to insist on the passage of
such legislation.

Does not the Senator from Montana
agree that it makes sense for us to take
cognizance of the situation confronting
our producers and to take steps to en¬
courage them by establishing fair and
reasonable competition through the flex¬
ible import fee principle?

Mr. ECTON. I thank the Senator
from Nevada for his remarks, and I
certainly agree that it is high time that
we take cognizance of the discrepancy
between the prices paid to our own min¬
ers and mine owners and the prices paid
to foreign producers.

I thank the able Senator from Nevada
very much for the contribution he has
made to this discussion.

MESSAGE PROM THE HOUSE

A message from the House of Repre¬
sentatives, by Mr. SnaderAits assistant
reading clerk, announced that the House
had passed, without amendment, the fol¬
lowing bills of the Senate:

S. 64. An act for the relief of Helen Dick;

S. 366. An act for the relief of Stanislas
d’Erceville;

S. 471. An act for the relief of Ai Mei Yu
and Ai Mei Chen;

S. 527. Ah act for the relief of Youichi
Nobori;

S. 605. An act for the relief of Constance
Chin Hu jig;

S. 634. 'An act for the- relief of Stela S.
Ransier;

S. 639j An act for the relief of Motoi Kano;

S. 640. An act for the relief of Isamu Fur-
uta;

S. 639. An act for the relief of Ritsuko
Chojifc;

' S. 702. An act for the relief of Joseph
Emanuel Winger;

S.895. An act for the relief of Dr. Yau
Shun Leung;

S. 971. An act for the relief of Ralph Al¬
brecht Hsiao;

S. 1120. An act for the relief of Misao Kon-
ishi;

S. 1158. An act for the relief of Takako
Kitamura Dalluge;

S. 1177. An act for the relief of Misako f drawn merely imposes penalties for those
^npshita; who bring labor illegally into the United

S^J236. An act for the relief of Kim Song states or who harbor labor illegally. We

well know that in the case of the Mexi-

Nore^

S. Ii580. An act for the relief of the minor
child, Eeng-slu Mei;

S. 1323. An act for the relief of Francisca
Quinones: /

S. 1339.\An act for the relief of Dr. Chal
Chang Choi; '

S. 1421. An act for the relief of Masako
Sugiyama; \ / ’

S. 1448. An act for the relief of Robert
William Lauber;

S. 1819. An act for the relief of Wolfgang
Vogel;

S. 1909. An act for the relief of Henry Bon-
gart and Evelyn Bongart;

S. 1911. An act for the relief of Michael
David Liu, a minor^

S. 2095. An act for the relief of Joe Kos-
aka; and

S. 2158. An act for the relief of Michiyo

Chiba.

ENROLLED BILL SIGNED

The message also announced that the
Speaker had affixed his signature to the
enrolled bill (S. 2169) authorizing the
acquisition by the Secretary of the In¬
terior of the Gila Pueblo, in Gila County,
Ariz., for archeological laboratory and
storage purposes, and for other purposes,
and it was signed by the President pro
tempore. /

ENROLLED BILL PRESENTED

The Secretary of the Senate reported
that on today, February 5, 1952, he pre¬
sented to the President of the United
States the enrolled bill (S. 2169) ''au¬
thorizing the acquisition by the Secre¬
tary of the Interior of the Gila Pueblo,
in Gila County, Ariz., for archeological
laboratory and storage purposes, and for
other purposes.

PREVENTION OF ILLEGAL ENTRY OF
ALIENS

The Senate resumed the consideration
of the bill (S. 1851) to assist in prevent¬
ing aliens from entering or remaining
in the United States illegally.

Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, in the
interest of simplification and to meet the
suggestions of the Senator from Oregon
[Mr. Cordon], I further modify my
amendment to the committee amend¬
ment, and I request that the amendment
as now modified be read.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The
amendment as now modified will be read.

The Legislative Clerk. As modified,
the amendment to the committee
amendment reads as follows:

On page 5, after line 17, insert the fol¬
lowing :

“Any person who shall employ any alien
not duly admitted by an immigration offi¬
cer or not lawfully entitled to enter or to re¬
side within the United States under the
terms of this act or under any other law re¬
lating to the immigration or expulsion of
aliens, when such person knows or has rea¬
sonable grounds to believe that such alien is
not lawfully within the United States, shall
be guilty of a felony, and upon conviction
thereof shall be punished by a fine not ex¬
ceeding $2,000, or by imprisonment for a
term not exceeding 1 year, or both, for each
alien in respect to .whom any violation of
this section occurs.”

Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, this
amendment is designed to make the
pending bill effective. The bill as now

cans they are not brought in. They
come across the Rio Grande River gen¬
erally when it is rather low. Sometimes
they get their backs wet, sometimes, they
only get their feet wet. They come in
to the United States illegally by the
hundreds of thousands each year. At
present the immigration authorities are
virtually helpless in dealing with them.
They enter in such large numbers as to
drive down the wages of American farm
labor: and they are not well paid, them¬
selves.

In 1950, Mexican labor in the lower
Rio Grande Valley, according to testi¬
mony, was apparently receiving 25 cents
an hour, which was half the rate paid
to domestic farm labor in that area, and
tended to depress the domestic labor rate
to the same level. In the Imperial Val¬
ley of California, the so-called wetbacks,
namely, Mexicans who had illegally
entered, also received appreciably less
than domestic labor. So, I think there
can be no doubt that these aliens who
enter this country in large numbers re¬
ceive low wages; and they receive low
wages in part because the employers
know that they have entered illegally,
and the employer, therefore, has a whip-
hand over them and can turn them over
to the immigration authorities if they do
not accept the terms which are offered
them.

The working conditions are also bad;
the sanitary and housing conditions are
bad; and this situation exercises a de¬
pressing influence on community stand¬
ards of health and on the general level
of wages for domestic labor as well.

Mr. LEHMAN and Mr. KNOWLAND
addressed the Chair.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does
the Senator from Illinois yield; and, if
so, to whom?

Mr. DOUGLAS. I yield first to the
Senator from New York.

Mr. LEHMAN. Mr. President, I con¬
gratulate the Senator from Illinois on his
perfected amendment, which, I believe
he will agree, remedies a weakness which
I pointed out in the debate earlier in
the day.

Mr. DOUGLAS. That is correct.

Mr. LEHMAN. As I understand, the
pending bill, without this amendment,
would permit a man to employ an immi¬
grant whom he knows to be illegally in
this country. He could employ him
without any question whatever. Am I
correct?

Mr. DOUGLAS. At present the bill
has no provision to the contrary.

Mr. LEHMAN. Therefore, this amend¬
ment which the Senator offers would
remedy that very important defect in the
bill, a defect which I think would render
ineffective the purposes the bill is de¬
signed to accomplish. I realize that the
purposes of the bill are good, and would
make it possible, in my opinion, to de¬
port the greater number of wetbacks and
other aliens and women who are illegally
in this country.

Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?

814 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE February 5

Mr. DOUGLAS. I yield for a ques¬
tion.

Mr. KNOWLAND. First of all, I
should like to ask the Senator from Illi¬
nois not to limit me strictly to a ques¬
tion. I will not take more than a minute
or two of his time, but I think he wants
clarity in the debate. Knowing the able
Senator’s fair-minded attitude, I wish,
since he has mentioned the Imperial
Valley, that he would take the time on
one of his trips to the west coast to go
into the Imperial Valley. I think the
Senator would find that the Mexican la¬
bor employed there is being paid a wage
comparable with wages paid other la¬
borers for comparable work in the Im¬
perial Valley and that the conditions in
the valley with respect to the reception
centers, and so forth, are satisfactory.
I think the Senator would so judge them
if he should go there to see them, as I
have done.

For the reasons which I pointed out
earlier, the labor which has crossed the
border into the United States has re¬
turned to Mexico with substantial ac¬
cumulations of wages, a thing which is
beneficial to themselves and their fami¬
lies when they go back to Mexico. Fur¬
thermore, they go back with suitcases
filled with merchandise which they have
been able to purchase in this country, to
take to their families. But, as I pointed
out earlier in this discussion, and which
is far more important, they go back with
a knowledge of American agricultural
methods, which will be highly beneficial
to them when they resume farming in
Mexico. So I certainly hope that the
able Senator from Illinois will take the
time and the trouble, in the investiga¬
tions which I know he likes to carry on,
to see for himself, without making state¬
ments such as he made regarding the
Imperial Valley.

The reason I am opposed to the Sena¬
tor’s amendment is because of the prac¬
tical situation which faces us. As I un¬
derstand the situation, this bill, as it was
reported unanimously by the Judiciary
Committee, has come about as the result
of a series of conferences, in which the
Department of Labor was represented—
and certainly the Department of Labor
is and should be interested in the im¬
provement of working conditions—also
the Department of Agriculture, which
has a great responsibility in seeing to it
that our food and fiber crops are har¬
vested in view of the very serious inter¬
national situation which confronts us at
this time. In addition to that, the immi¬
gration authorities have been consulted
in regard to this measure, as well as the
various groups representing the farmers
who must harvest the crops.

The facts of the matter are that the
amendment offered last year by the
Senator was not accepted in conference,
and it is not likely to be accepted this
time. The days of harvesting are al¬
ready here, in some instances, or are
rapidly approaching. In my judgment,
all that can happen as a result of the
acceptance of the amendment of the
Senator from Illinois is that the passage
of this bill will be delayed, we shall not
have the legislation which is needed, and
it will be impossible to renew the agree¬
ment with the Mexican Government.

As a consequence, I think a great hard¬
ship will result to our own people. If
the Senator, after visiting the Imperial
Valley and obtaining first-hand infor¬
mation, desires to return to the Senate
to offer a pertinent amendment to simi¬
lar legislation, which will have to be in¬
troduced, I think that will be the time
for him to propose his amendment.

Mr. DOUGLAS. I was glad to yield to
the Senator from California for his ques¬
tions. Of course, the Mexicans who
come into this country illegally gener¬
ally find better conditions here than they
had in Mexico. If they did not find bet¬
ter conditions here, they would not con¬
tinue to come here. But the question is
not whether we afford conditions which
are slightly better than those in Mex¬
ico. The question is whether we shall
have an American standard for agricul¬
tural labor and not allow our farm labor
to be dragged down to a point approxi¬
mating the Mexican standard.

We have established what purports to
be a legal way of handling the matter by
contracts. We make contracts with the
Mexican Government for Mexican labor
to come into the United States. I believe
that in the State of Texas such labor is
paid 40 cents an hour, and in other sec¬
tions of the country, 60 cents an hour.
This can be done legally. But the point
is that large farming interests in the
South and the Southwest do not want to
have labor under those legal conditions,
because that means higher wage scales
than they have to pay the labor which
is illegally brought in. It is cheaper for
them to have illegal labor than for them
to follow the legal method which should
be enforced.

Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, will
the Senator from Illinois yield for an¬
other question?

Mr. DOUGLAS. I yield to the Sena¬
tor from California.

Mr. KNOWLAND. The Senator from
Illinois does not maintain, does he, that
so far as the Imperial Valley of Cali¬
fornia is concerned, the workers are paid
less than the legal rate? As a matter of
fact, the statement was concurred in by
Government officials with whom I talked
in that area that in a number of in¬
stances it is costing the farmers more to
employ Mexican labor because of the
transportation and the bond, and they
would rather have American labor if
they could get it. The problem is that
the crop comes along and it is either
harvested or wasted. We are dealing
with the Nation’s food supply in this
emergency.

Mr. LEHMAN. Mr. President, will the
Senator from Illinois yield?

Mr. DOUGLAS. I yield.

Mr. LEHMAN. I wonder if the Sena¬
tor from California knows that this
morning there was held a hearing con¬
ducted by a Subcommittee of the Senate
Committee on Labor and Public Welfare,
and that testimony was offered to the
effect that in 1951 there were 600,000 for¬
eign laborers in this country, and at the
same time it was estimated that there
were in the United States more than
200,000 Mexicans who had come here
illegally and who had not been deported
in spite of efforts made to deport them.
I wonder whether the Senator from Illi¬

nois will agree with me that under the
provisions of the pending bill, the pur¬
pose of which I believe is good, there is
no way of punishing or even discouraging
anyone in connection with the employ¬
ment of a man or woman whom he knows
is illegally in this country. Am I cor¬
rect in that?

Mr. DOUGLAS. The Senator from
New York is completely correct on that
point. The effects of the illegal entry
of hundreds of thousands of Mexicans
are not merely confined to agricultural
regions. They receive their immediate
employment in the agricultural regions
of the South and Southwest, and then
move to the North. After they have
been here for a time, they go to the cities
and increase the labor supply there.

In my own State there are tens of
thousands of Mexicans who have ille¬
gally entered the country. The only
time they are detected is when some of
them get into trouble with the police,
and where a police record is obtained, it
is found that they do not have a cer¬
tificate entitling them legally to enter the
country. In those cases they are de¬
ported and sent back to Mexico. But if
they do not get into trouble with the
police, and most of them do not, they
continue to remain here. So we are
having a gradual dilution of the working
force. These aliens in many cases live
under conditions which are very close to
peonage, because they are afraid they
will be turned over to the public author¬
ities by their employer if they do not
agree to the terms which their employer
suggests, and they fear that they will
be deported. Therefore, they accept con¬
ditions of employment which otherwise
they would not accept.

The amendment which I have modi¬
fied in accordance with the suggestions
of the senior Senator from Oregon [Mr.
Cordon] is very simple. It merely im¬
poses a penalty on those who employ
alien laborers knowing, or with reason¬
able grounds to believe, they are il¬
legally in this country. It does not re¬
quire the employer to inquire whether
the laborer is here legally, nor does it
require the employer to serve as an en¬
forcement agency. It merely makes the
employer liable if he knows or has good
grounds to believe that the laborer has
illegally entered the United States.

I see no real reason why anyone
should object to this amendment.

Mr. CASE. Mr. President, will the
Senator from Illinois yield?

Mr. DOUGLAS. I would prefer not
to do so at this time.

I cannot believe that the Senate of the
United States wants to encourage cheap
and illegal labor. We hear much about
protecting American industry. This
seems to be a case where we should pro¬
tect the minimum labor standards. Un¬
less we adopt some such amendment as
this, the treaty with Mexico will tend to
be a complete dead letter. For every few
thousand Mexicans coming in under the
treaty with Mexico, there are tens of
thousands coming in under no protec¬
tion at all.

The pending bill provides a penalty
against those who transport labor il¬
legally into this country. But most of
these aliens do not come in busses or in

1952 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE

railroad trains; they come on foot. No
one transports them; they transport
themselves. So that section is inopera¬
tive as any great deterrent. Those la¬
borers usually move individually to the
employers; and unless we place some
protective measures on the farms that
employ the legal entrants, and on the
wage and community standards of do¬
mestic farm workers, the gravely de¬
pressing effects of this illegal immigra¬
tion will continue.

Mr. CASE. Mr. President, will the
Senator from Illinois yield?

Mr. DOUGLAS. I yield.

Mr. CASE. Was not a similar provi¬
sion placed in the previous bill?

Mr. DOUGLAS. That is correct. It
was a stronger provision than is this
one.

Mr. CASE. What happened to it?

Mr. DOUGLAS. It was eliminated in
conference.

Mr. CASE. Is not the Senator afraid
that if this provision is now put into the
bill, there will be the same result?

Mr. DOUGLAS. No, I hope not. I
think the Senate should not retreat
from the position which it took. It was
a sound position last year, and it is a
sound position this year, and we should
not back down.

Mr. CASE. Does the Senator feel that
it is necessary to have this legislation
on the subject,?

Mr. DOUGLAS. Oh, yes. Reasonable
men should have no objection to this
proposal.

Mr. CASE. It failed before to get by
the conference committee. Does the
Senator think it will succeed this time?

Mr. DOUGLAS. Time, facts, and
logic have a great influence on many
people. I think the House conferees will
be more amenable than they were last
year.

Mr. LEHMAN. Mr. President, will the
Senator from Illinois yield?

Mr. DOUGLAS. I yield.

Mr. LEHMAN. Will the Senator not
agree with me that it is a remarkable
thing that at a time when w"e are trying
to exclude persons who have been guilty
of moral turpitude or who have com¬
mitted crimes or have given definite in¬
dications that they would not be loyal
to this country and might even be sub¬
versive, we are endeavoring to pass legis¬
lation which would make it difficult to
exclude certain other persons for whom
there has been no test whatsoever?

By the very nature of the situation,
the men and women, particularly the
men, who have come illegally into the
United States from Mexico have been
subjected to no examination, no test,
and no survey. Yet they may stay here
for a long period of time, even though
they may not have passed any test of
eligibility for immigration, and we are
depriving the Government of the power
to deport them because we are placing no
penalty, or any other means of discour¬
agement, upon their employers, although
it is known that these aliens are in this
country illegally and have passed no test
whatsoever. It seems to me to be an
entirely unrealistic and contradictory
situation.

Mr. DOUGLAS. Certainly it leaves
the back door wide open.

Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?

Mr. DOUGLAS. I yield to the Sena¬
tor from Vermont.

Mr. AIKEN. I should like to ask the
Senator from Illinois a question. Sup¬
pose an employer hires persons referred
to him by the United States Employ¬
ment Service, and later finds that one of
them is an illegal entrant. Would the
employer then be liable, or would he be
justified in relying upon the employment
service not to refer illegal entrants to
him for employment?

Mr. DOUGLAS. The question by the
Senator from Vermont is as to liability
of an employer if a worker has been re¬
ferred to him by the employment
service?

Mr. AIKEN. That is correct. If an
employer hires persons who have been
referred to him by the United States
Employment Service, and later finds
that one of them is in this country ill¬
egally, would the employer himself then
be responsible, or would the responsi¬
bility fall upon the employment service?

Mr. DOUGLAS. The employer would
not be responsible under those circum¬
stances, because the wording of the
amendment is such that the employer
must know or have reasonable ground
to believe that the alien has illegally
entered. If an alien had been referred
to him by the Government Employment
Service, the presumption would be that
the alien was a legal entrant, and the
employer in that case certainly would
not be responsible.

Mr. AIKEN. I thank the Senator
from Illinois.

Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, while
the Senator from California [Mr.
Knowland] is in the Chamber, in answer
to questions he has raised about Impe¬
rial Valley, I should like to read from
the report entitled “Migratory Labor in
American Agriculture. Report of the
President’s Commission on Migratory
Labor.” At page 79 there appears the
following:

Notwithstanding the strong and clear
tendency for wages to rise as one moves west¬
ward, with California the highest of the
group, we found wages in the Imperial Val¬
ley on the Mexican border to represent a
complete reversal of this pattern. The going
wage rate for common and hand labor in
the Imperial Valley was 50 cents per hour.
Thus Imperial Valley farm employers pay no
more to get their farm work done than do
farm employers in southern New Mexico and
probably less than do Arizona farm em¬
ployers.

I shall skip a sentence which I do not
believe has any bearing, and shall re¬
sume reading, as follows:

It is thus clear that the Imperial Valley,
with its large wetback traffic, represents a
substantial contradiction to an otherwise
consistent general tendency for farm wages
to improve toward the West. The force of
the Imperial Valley wetback traffic is strong
enough to upset this well-established East-
West wage pattern; at the same time, it is
strong enough to institute in one of the
high-farm-wage States of the Nation, the
same type of wage differential that is found
on the Texas border. While common farm

815

labor wages in 1950 in the Imperial Valley
were 50 cents per hour, the going rate in
the San Joaquin Valley was 85 cents per
hour.

Mr. President, that is all I wish to say
on this amendment. I hope it may be
approved.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The
question is on agreeing to the amend¬
ment, as modified, offered by the Senator
from Illinois [Mr. Douglas].

Mr. LANGER. Mr. President, I rise to
speak in opposition to this modified
amendment. Already the American
farmer is the “fall guy” for practically
all the leaders of industry, and those
who live off the farmer and the worker.
The small-business men usually give him
a square deal.

The greatest gambler today is the
farmer. He is dependent upon the
weather and upon a conglomerate
variety of other things which he is un¬
able to avoid. Under this modified
amendment, a group of men may be
employed by a farmer who needs men to
work, for example, in the sugar-beet
fields. This work cannot wait. It must
be done in season. If by chance one of
that group is an alien, but the farmer
does not know it, and does not have time
while operating his farm to make an in¬
vestigation, the farmer could be found
guilty of a felony and be sent to a
penitentiary.

It seems to me that the Senate ought
to be much more interested in protect¬
ing the American farmer, who has prac¬
tically everything against him, than in
preventing the employment of groups
of aliens from Mexico or any other
country.

The committee had before it an
amendment similar to this. After much
discussion, the proposed amendment
was discarded. The amendment now
being offered on the floor is, in my opin¬
ion, an amendment which is very dan¬
gerous to the welfare of the farmer, and
I hope it will be defeated.

Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, I call
for a vote on the amendment, as
modified.

Mr. CORDON. Mr. President, I rise
to speak in favor of the modified amend¬
ment to the bill. I support it because
without it the bill is little more than a
gesture so far as effectiveness is con¬
cerned. The bill without the amend¬
ment would be much better than no
legislation, but it is not as good as it
would be if it contained an effective pro¬
vision such as that now offered by the
Senator from Illinois.

If there is a situation along the Rio
Grande where it is necessary, for the
benefit of the economy of that section,
for employers to hire aliens who are
illegally in the United States, that is
one thing. If that is the case, we should
meet it as a fact. If, on the other hand,
the policy of the Federal Government
is to prevent the entrance of aliens into
the country except in accordance with
our laws; if it be the policy of the Gov¬
ernment to prevent our citizens and
others from aiding and abetting any
such entry; if it be the policy to prohibit
our citizens or others within our borders

816

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE

February 5

giving aid and assistance to illegally-
entered aliens, why should we hesitate
to say to the employers that they also
must use ordinary care in their employ¬
ment relations? Why should we not say
to them that they also have a duty to
their country?

Mr. President, the amendment which
is now offered has never been rejected
by any conference committee because it
has never before been in a bill in the
form in which it now appears. The
amendment which was before the con¬
ferees on a previous occasion carried
two further provisions which I can read¬
ily understand were exceedingly objec¬
tionable to some. The amendment as
it was rejected by the conference com¬
mittee prohibited not only the employ¬
ment of aliens who were unlawfully
within this country when the employer
knew that the aliens were here unlaw¬
fully, it not only prohibited such em¬
ployment when the employer had rea¬
sonable ground to believe that the aliens
were unlawfully in this country, but it
prohibited such employment if the em¬
ployer did not take the affirmative step
of making inquiry of each of his em¬
ployees.

Further than that, it required of every
employer that he become an adjunct to
the law enforcement service, to the Im¬
migration Service. It required him to
look up the appropriate immigration
official, and seek to get from him such
information as he could acquire with
reference to any alien as to whom there
was any question.

Mr. LANGER. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield for a question?

Mr. CORDON. I will yield in a mo¬
ment.

All those provisions were in the
amendment as it was adopted by the
Senate and rejected by the conference.

The pending amendment simply pro¬
hibits an individual in the United States
from employing an alien unlawfully
within the United States under circum¬
stances in which, first, the employer
knows as a fact that he is employing
an alien unlawfully within the United
States, or, second, when he has pos¬
session of such knowledge as would rea¬
sonably lead him to believe that the
alien is unlawfully within the United
States. Only then is he in violation of
law.

I now yield to the Senator from North
Dakota.

Mr. LANGER. Mr. President, take
the case of a farmer who needs help im¬
mediately. A group of men come along
and he hires them. When he hires them,
he may know that nine out of 10 have
a right to be hired. The farmer assumes
that the tenth man is also legally in
the United States. That farmer would
be placed at the mercy of the tenth man,
who might blackmail him. He might
work for him for a short time and then
say, “Unless I get so much money from
you I am going to the United States dis¬
trict attorney and have you arrested.”
In order to protect himself and keep out
of the penitentiary a farmer employing

aliens might have to hire a Philadelphia
lawyer.

The modified amendment provides
that any farmer who has reasonable
ground to believe that an alien may be
in the United States illegally and hires
him is in violation of the law. In other
words, he can be arrested and tried be¬
fore a jury on the question as to whether
or not he had reasonable ground to be¬
lieve that the alien was illegally with¬
in the United States. That would place
another burden on the farmer, who is al¬
ready overburdened by the Federal Gov¬
ernment with scores of regulations.

Mr. CORDON. Mr. President, I dis¬
agree with my friend from North Da¬
kota almost 100 percent. I concede that
any man desiring to blackmail a farmer
might lie about him and perhaps cause
him some trouble. We cannot stop that
by any way I know of. I know of no
brand of law which can change human
nature. The Senator from North Da¬
kota is correct to that extent, but no
further.

This amendment does not require any
employer to make a single inquiry of any
kind or character before he employs any
prospective employee. He is not re¬
quired to ask him whether he is an alien.
He is not required to believe him if he
says he is an alien. The farmer may
employ any individual who seeks em¬
ployment. But if he knows as a fact
that the alien is unlawfully within the
United States, then he may not employ
him.

How can he know? In only one way
could he have absolute knowledge, and
that is if he saw the man cross the
border. There is no other way. So if
we limit this prevision to personal knowl¬
edge, we have simply used words. If we
include a prohibition in the case in which
the employer has reasonable ground to
believe that the alien is unlawfully with¬
in the United States, then we say to the
employer, “You may employ any aliens
who come to you seeking employment.
You are not required to inquire as to
whether or not they are legally within
the United States. You may act on the
presumption that they are entitled to be
here. But if before you employ any in¬
dividual, the individual himself says to
you that he is illegally within the
United States, and that fact can be
proved, or if a dozen others say that
they know he is illegally in this country
because they saw him cross the Rio
Grande, for example, or if you have
possession of enough facts of that char¬
acter—not the fact of an illegal entry,
but the fact that someone has said there
was an illegal entry—if there has come
to your knowledge enough information
from other sources, information which
you are not required to seek, but of
which you may be in possession, infor¬
mation which would lead an ordinary
reasonable mind to the conclusion that
a certain individual is illegally within
the United States, then you may not
employ him without rendering yourself
liable to prosecution under this act.”

There is no obligation upon the em¬
ployer to do more than receive the in¬

formation which comes to him. When
he receives it, he need do no more than
give it the ordinary evaluation which
a reasoning mind gives to the informa¬
tion which flows past it every day.

Mr. President, we need the amend¬
ment in the bill if we are honestly to
try to do the job we seek to do.

Mr. KILGORE. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. CORDON. I am happy to yield
to the Senator from West Virginia.

Mr. KILGORE. I would not myself
sponsor or vote for the provision with
respect to which I should like to ask the
Senator a question. I wonder if the Sen¬
ator from Oregon would be willing to
add to the amendment the proviso that
every American citizen must carry a card
of identification, just as every i mmi grant,
must have his record of immigration
with him, so that the employer may be
assured, by an inspection of an official
record, as is the case in Europe and other
countries, that he is employing a person
legally within the country. I wonder if
the Senator and the other proponents of
this amendment would want to place
such a provision in the bill, to afford the
employer a little safeguard.

Mr. CORDON. Mr. President, I think
the inquiry is somewhat facetious.
However, let me digress for a moment
to suggest that I have no desire to re¬
quire a dossier operation such as is re¬
quired in the police countries around
the world. By the same token, I believe
that this amendment gives to every hon¬
est employer every protection he needs.
It could not be more liberal and be at all
effective. There must be some place
where we can reach actions which in
themselves represent the reason for the
situation which we seek to control.

That situation exists because when
immigrants arrive in this country they
find conditions so much better than con¬
ditions in their own country that they
are willing to take the chance of violat¬
ing our law and make illegal entry. *

What do they find here? They find
employment at far higher wages than
are paid in their own country. They find
themselves paid with money which has
a very great value when they return with
it to their own country. Even though we
may think that they are living in squalor
here, they find a very much higher level
of living than they could ever have
known in their own country. So they
come here.

Mr. President, the reason they find
such conditions is that, having entered
unlawfully, they find employment. They
are not here to starve. Why, then,
should we shut our eyes to one of the
evils, the major evil, that of inviting
aliens to violate our immigration laws
while at the same time we almost guar¬
antee them employment in this coun¬
try, where, God knows, plenty of our
own people could use such employment?

Mr. LEHMAN. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?

Mr. CORDON.. Mr. President, if this
amendment placed upon the farmer-em¬
ployer in this country any obligation to
do more than be ordinarily, decently re-

1952

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE

sponsive to the laws of his own country,
I should oppose it. It does not do that.
It does not require him to do any affirma¬
tive thing. It is sound legislation if any
provision in the bill is sound legislation.
I hope the amendment will be adopted.

Let me say before I take my seat that
I am not moved by the argument that the
bill itself will fail if this amendment is
placed in it. I am not ready to confess
futility on the part of the United States
Senate. If it believes that a thing ought
to be done, that thing should be done, and
we should abide by the event when the
result comes before us.

Mr. WELKER. Mr. President, as a
taxpayer and as a farmer in eastern Ore¬
gon, represented so well by the senior
Senator from Oregon [Mr. Cordon], I
rise, not to prolong the debate, but 'to
disagree with the remarks of the dis¬
tinguished senior Senator from Oregon.

I wish to associate myself with the re¬
marks of the distinguished senior Senator
from North Dakota [Mr. LangerI.

In this amendment I can see only utter
confusion and prospective damage to the
farmers who hire migrant labor.

I wish to refer for a moment to the
time when we on our farms in eastern
Oregon need such labor. It may be that
the beet-thinning season is on, or many
other types of farm labor which must be
done at once, without* delay. It is a
highly seasonal situation. The beets
must be thinned at a particular time.
The work must be done without delay.
If we go into the city of Ontario, Oreg.,
and pick up 10 men, perhaps not one of
them can speak English. We cannot
take the time to find the manager in
order to ascertain, with ordinary care,
whether or not the men are legally in the
United States. We must take the family
as a group—and we hire many families—
or we must take a crew as we find it with¬
out time to investigate. Assuming, Mr.
President, after we get them to the camp,
an individual tell us, “Well, John Jones
in that crew does not have perfect admis¬
sibility in the United States,’’ we are in
violation of the law. Under the pro¬
posed amendment the farmer is crim¬
inally liable. The farmer must go to
court to answer to a felony. He must
hire an attorney—he must take time off
to answer for a serious crime, a felony.

Mr. President, I know something about
working conditions in the State of Cali¬
fornia, the State of Oregon, and the State
of Idaho, and I say that we do not need
this vicious amendment. It would
merely open the door for many decent
farmers in the hiring season to be ex¬
posed to the charge of having committed
a felony, when they are not at all crim¬
inally inclined. Much serious hardship
and damage can be done the farmer un¬
der this amendment.

Therefore, I shall vote against the
amendment. There is no place for it
in the bill. It should be defeated.

Mr. LEHMAN. Mr. President, I am
very confident that my colleagues in the
Senate know my position with regard
to immigration. I have always felt that
this country should encourage and help
the entry of law-abiding men and women
of good character, who have given evi¬
dence or indication that they would be

worthy citizens and not come into con¬
flict with our laws.

By the same token, Mr. President, I
have always taken the position that men
and women who are in this country
illegally should be deported by due proc¬
ess of law as promptly and as definitely
as can be provided.

The men who are the subject of the
bill before the Senate have come into
the country illegally. There can be no
doubt about that. The law itself defines
the presence of these men as being ille¬
gal. I cannot understand why anyone
should say that a citizen of this country,
knowing that a person is in the country
illegally, should not make every effort
to see that the person is returned to his
own country.

Under the provisions of the law as it
now stands, unless it is amended by the
amendment offered by the Senator from
Illinois [Mr. Douglas], a farmer could
employ a man even though he were told
by that man that he was illegally in
this country. There would be no penalty
inflicted whatever on a man who offered
employment or gave employment to such
an alien, even though he had the most
definite proof, such as the proof of the
prospective employee’s own word, that
he was in the country illegally.

Mr. President, I want to see such men
returned to their own country. I want
to see deported the men who have come
here illegally, many of whom have been
subjected to no test whatever by our
immigration officials or by our State
Department. I want to see the law
strengthened so that they can be sent
back. The pending bill alone would not
accomplish that result. It would be
rendered ineffective, because no penalty
would be provided for the employment
of men who have come into the country
illegally, and who may stay here illegally
for an indefinite number of years. No
penalty would be provided for such ille¬
gal entry. Therefore the law could be
disregarded and made completely in¬
effective.

Mr. KILGORE. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. LEHMAN. I yield.

Mr. KILGORE. I have refrained from
taking part in the debate. I have been
sitting on the floor while other Senators
have gone to lunch. I should like to
see the debate concluded as soon as pos¬
sible. However, does the Senator from
New York realize that an alien who
comes into the Gountry illegally may re¬
main in the country as long as 3 years
and is then given an automatic stay of
execution, whereas the farmer who em¬
ploys such an alien would have an auto¬
matic term in the penitentiary? Are we
out to get the employer, or are we out to
get the wetback?

The question I should like to ask of
the junior Senator from New York is
this: We are dealing with men who grow
millions of dollars’ worth of crops.
American labor will not handle what we
call stoop work. It has always been
necessary to import labor from abroad
to do that kind of work. We used to
bring in Japanese, Chinese, Filipinos,
and Mexicans. If we defeat the bill we
do not get a new contract; we merely

817

invite another invasion by wetbacks, or
bankruptcy among the farmers who are
concerned with the problem.

Mr. President, I believe that we should
look at the problem in a logical way. I
agree with the senior Senator from New
York that we should eliminate illegal
entries. At the same time, I am also
in favor of protecting both the Amer¬
ican worker and the American employer
to the fullest extent. I believe the en¬
actment of the bill with the amendment
would invite an invasion by wetbacks.
Either we would invite an invasion, or we
would subject the farmers who raise the
crops to bankruptcy. The farmers who
are concerned raise a great canning and
deep-freeze crop.

I wonder whether the senior Senator
from New York realizes that we have
gotten far afield here. The proposed leg¬
islation does not legalize wetbacks, and
the Immigration Service says it strength¬
ens their opportunity to catch the wet¬
backs. I am a little like the old moun¬
tain farmer in my State who said that he
believed in doing things by the littles.
We cannot accomplish it all in one fell
swoop. I prefer to do it by the little.
We are doing a little, at least. The Im¬
migration Service says they can work
with this bill, without the proposed
amendment, and they say they can stop
the illegal entries and can apprehend
the aliens who have been coming in to
the United States. I do not want to
punish only American employers. Like
my distinguished friend, the senior Sen¬
ator from Illinois [Mr. Douglas], I do
not believe in starting 6-year-olds in
college. I believe we must start them in
the first grade. I realize that American
employers-

Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, let me
say to my good friend the Senator from
West Virginia-

Mr. KILGORE. Mr. President, I did
not yield to the Senator from Illinois,
and I wonder whether the Senator from
New York, who has the floor and who
yielded to me, has yielded to the Senator
from Illinois.

Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, I rise
to a question of personal privilege.

Mr. ETLGORE. Very well, Mr. Presi¬
dent.

Mr. DOUGLAS. I think the Senator
has been reading in the New Yorker an
article which is unkindly in nature and
which is, in my opinion, as it relates to
the city of Chicago and the University of
Chicago, somewhat exaggerated and at
variance with the actual situation.

Mr. LEHMAN. Mr. President, I have
yielded to the distinguished Senator
from West Virginia.

Mr. KILGORE. Mr. President, let me
say to the distinguished Senator from
Illinois that I never have read the New
Yorker. I was trying to draw an analogy
in this respect: We have had wetbacks
for so long that our employers have to be
educated from the first grade up, in re-:
gard to the wetback problem; and we
cannot start the employers on a college
course in that subject until they have
had education in the lower grades.

Although last year I was just as am¬
bitious and just as buoyant as was the
Senator from Illinois in supporting his

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE February 5

818

proposals in regard to this matter, at the
same time I think we must handle it
according to the suggestion of the West
Virginia farmer, namely, “by the littles,”
and must not begin to punish Americans
for things about which our predecessors
in Congress were lax, and in regard to
which those of us who serve in Congress
are in part responsible because of our
failure to provide the Immigration Serv¬
ice with appropriations sufficiently large
to permit the employment of adequate
personnel to patrol the border. My
friend, the Senator from Texas, knows,
as I used to know, the number of Immi¬
gration Service inspectors we maintain
on the Mexican border.

So we must raise our sights in regard
to the proper number of immigration- in¬
spectors and we must try to realize the
present situation as it is, and must try
to improve it a little at a time.

Mr. LEHMAN. Mr. President, let me
ask the Senator from West Virginia
whether that was a question which was
addressed to me.

Mr. KILGORE. Yes; the question is.
Does not the Senator think that is the
situation?

Mr. LEHMAN. Mr. President, the
question is a long one. [Laughter.]
However, I interpret the question as an
inquiry whether I wish to get after the
wetbacks or after the farmers. Of
course, my answer is a very simple one,
namely, that I wish to get after the wet¬
backs. However, I am afraid this bill
will render ineffective any efforts we may
make to get after the wetbacks.

It may be that the contract we have
had, which we now seek to extend with
the Mexican Government, providing for
the importation into the United States
of a certain number of farm laborers,
may be of value to American farmers.
However, so far as I know, there is noth¬
ing in the contract which recognizes or
legalizes wetbacks, except the Mexican
Government, I believe, assures our Gov¬
ernment that it will attempt to cooper¬
ate with the United States Government
in stopping the entry of wetbacks. How¬
ever, the Mexican Government has not
stopped it, and our Government has not
stopped it; and during the last growing
season nearly 300,000 wetbacks were in
the United States.

Mr. KILGORE. Mr. President, will
the Senator from New York permit a
slight additional explanation?

Mr. LEHMAN. Of course.

Mr. KILGORE. Such a person who
enters the United States legally is pro¬
vided with a card which has on it his
photograph, fingerprints, and so forth.
References have been made to a situa¬
tion which the farmers in the South¬
west attempt to use slave labor. We
realize that the farmer there pays, in
addition to wages, transportation
charges and other costs for the labor.
As I have said, the laborer is provided
with an identification card which he car¬
ries with him to the job.

I find that without exception the
Southwestern farmers wish to employ
legally the laborers they need, and wish
to have a legal way of getting them into
the United States. That is why I con¬
cur in the bill now before the Senate

and In the committee amendment sub¬
mitted to the bill.

Mr. McCLELLAN. Mr. President, I
should lika to ask the author of the
amendment a question or two about it, if
I may do so.

Mr. DOUGLAS. I shall be very glad
to try to answer any questions the Sen¬
ator from Arkansas may ask.

Mr. McCLELLAN. I am somewhat
concerned about the portion of the
amendment which reads “reasonable
grounds for belief.”" Under that lan¬
guage of the amendment, would not it
be possible to convict a farmer of a
felony, and send him to the peniten¬
tiary, on less evidence than is required
to convict a person of knowingly re¬
ceiving stolen property?

In other words, the penalty for em¬
ploying a wetback would thus be made
more severe than the penalty which is
imposed upon a person who knowingly
receives stolen property and the possi¬
bility of conviction would be greater in
the case of a farmer who employs such
labor, for he could be convicted on less
evidence and on less of a showing of
guilt and less of a showing of intent.

Mr. DOUGLAS. In reply to the Sen¬
ator from Arkansas, let me say that
under the provisions of the amendment
the Government would bear the burden
of proof and would have to show beyond
a reasonable doubt that the farmer in
question had reasonable grounds for be¬
lieving that the worker was an illegal
entrant. In other words, the Govern¬
ment would have to demonstrate beyond
a reasonable doubt that the farmer
either knew or had reasonable grounds
for believing that the alien was not il¬
legally within the United States.

Mr. McCLELLAN. Yes; but the
statute which would make the farmer
or any other person guilty of a felony
for knowingly receiving stolen property
does not include a provision similar to
the one the Senator from Illinois has
included in his amendment to the com¬
mittee amendment. In this instance
the Senator from Illinois goes further
and, in respect to knowledge or belief,
would require more of a farmer who
hires a wetback than would be required
to convict a farmer or any other person
for receiving stolen property.

Mr. DOUGLAS. I am not familiar
with the statute in regard to receiving
stolen goods, and therefore I am not
competent to speak about it.

I should think that the same criminal
law rule would apply to both, namely,
that the burden of proof beyond a rea¬
sonable doubt would be upon the Gov¬
ernment, and it would have to show
that the employer knew or had reason¬
able grounds for believing that the per¬
son he was hiring was an illegal entrant.

Mr. McCLELLAN. In other words,
according to my interpretation, it would
take less proof to send a farmer to the
penitenitary for trying to harvest his
crop if he happened to hire a wetback
to help him harvest it, than it would
to send a professional “fence” to the
penitenitary for knowingly receiving
stolen property.

I should like to ask the Senator from
Illinois another question: In this case

are we not making a felon out of a
farmer because he employs someone
who happens to be illegally in the
United States, to help him harvest his
crop, rather than to permit the crop to
go to waste and deteriorate and spoil,
whereas it is the responsibility of the
Federal Government itself to police the
border and to keep out such persons?
Thus we would make the farmer a vic¬
tim of the Government’s own failure
and inefficiency in policing the border, so
far as immigration is concerned. Is not
that true?

Mr. DOUGLAS. I am sure the Sena¬
tor from Arkansas joins me in the high
respect and regard I hold for the com¬
petence and ability of the senior Sena¬
tor from Louisiana [Mr. Ellender] who,
I may say, originally drafted a bill far
more stringent than the amendment I
am proposing. The Senator from Lou¬
isiana had that proposal incorporated
in a separate bill which he introduced
last year as S. 1391; and what is re¬
ferred to as the Douglas amendment of
last year is really the Ellender amend¬
ment somewhat watered down.

This year the amendment is a still
further dilution of the Ellender bill, and
I am quite certain that the senior Sen¬
ator from Louisiana would take every
proper step to protect the planters and
the agriculturists.

I am even more lenient on them than
was the senior Senator from Louisiana.
So I am sure the historic explanation I
have given should serve to assure the
Senator from Arkansas that I have not
advocated unduly severe penalties on
American farmers. If my amendment is
more strict than the existing law in ref¬
erence to receiving stolen property, it
is just possible that a legal provision
dealing with the labor of human beings
and affecting community and farm labor
standards generally ought to afford these
greater protections.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The
question is on agreeing to the modified
amendment of the Senator from Illi¬
nois [Mr. Douglas] to the committee
amendment.

Mr. WELKER. Mr. President, I sug¬
gest the absence of a quorum.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The
clerk will call the roll.

The Chief Clerk called the roll, and
the following Senators answered to their
names:

Aiken

Hennings

Millikin

Anderson

Hill

Monroney

Bennett

Hoey

Moody

Bricker

Holland

Morse

Bridges

Humphrey

Mundt

Butler, Md.

Hunt

Murray

Byrd

Ives

Neely

Cain

Jenner

Nixon

Capehart

Johnson, Colo.

O’Conor

Case

Johnson, Tex.

O’Mahoney

Chavez

Johnston, S. C.

Pas tore

Clements

Kem

Robertson

Connally

Kilgore

Russell

Cordon

Knowland

Saltonstall

Douglas

Langer

Smathers

Dworshak

Lehman

Smith, Maine

Eastland

Lodge

Smith, N. J.

Ecton

Long

Smith, N. O.

Ellender

Magnuson

Sparkman

Ferguson

Malone

Stennis

Flanders

Martin

Thye

Frear

Maybank

Tobey

Fulbright

McCarran

Underwood

George

McClellan

Watkins

Gillette

McFarland

Welker

Hayden

McKellar

Williams

Hendrickson

McMahon

Young

1952

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE

819

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. A
quorum is present.

The question is on agreeing to the
amendment, offered by the Senator from
Illinois, as modified.

Mr. DOUGLAS and other Senators
asked for the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were not ordered.

Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I shall
not detain the Senate more than a very
few minutes to give a statement of the
factual operation of labor from Mexico
as it applies to the cotton-picking prob¬
lem in Mississippi. These laborers from
Mexico are used for only a few weeks,
during the peak of the cotton-picking
season. My State is approximately a
thousand miles from the Mexican
border. There is considerable competi¬
tion for those workers. Men are brought
in by truoks, motor transportation, some
times arriving in the night. There is
considerable confusion and scrambling.
They are there only a few weeks. If they
are not used during those few weeks, it
is sometimes too late to use them.

Mr. President, I think we are placing
an unreasonable burden upon the em¬
ployer who is acting in good faith, with
all the facilities he may have available.
I think the best statement which has
been made with reference to the ques¬
tion, as it applies to a matter with which
I am familiar, was made by the Senator
from Arkansas [Mr. McClellan], I
should like to ask the Senator from
Arkansas if he will not compare this bill
to the operation of the law regarding the
receiving of stolen property. If the
Senator will again explain to the
Senate-

Mr. McCLELLAN. Ml'. President, will
the Senator from Mississippi yield?

Mr. STENNIS. I yield.

Mr. McCLELLAN. Mr. President, I
have no desire to repeat the statement I
made a few moments ago. It was made
upon the basis of the pending amend¬
ment.

What we are doing, when we place in
the bill the provision with reference to
the farmer having reasonable grounds to
believe, and so forth, is simply to require
less proof to convict the farmer of a
felony and send him to the penitentiary
for employing a wetback than would be
required to convict a professional fence
for receiving stolen property, because, in
order to be convicted of receiving stolen
property, the law requires that he know¬
ingly received stolen property. Here we
temporize and say that of a farmer in
distress, trying to harvest his crop, hap¬
pens to employ a wetback who, there is
reasonable ground for believing, is
illegally in the country—it may be only
rumor, but the farmer cannot stop to in¬
quire—he could be convicted. But that
kind of proof would not convict, under
the statute, a professional fence who
knowingly receives stolen property. The
farmer has no other desire than to keep
his crop from perishing and to preserve
it. Do we want to impose on him a
higher obligation when it comes to em¬
ploying a wetback than we would impose
on a professional fence for receiving
stolen property?

Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I thank
the Senator from Arkansas for his very
fine statement and to make the point
that this amendment, as I understand
it, applies not only to the importation
of migratory labor, but it is a general
amendment to our immigration laws and
will apply to all types of persons who
happen to be in this country illegally.

In this connection, Mr. President, may
I ask the Chair to have the pending
amendment now read by the clerk?

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The
clerk will read the pending amendment.

The Chief Clerk. On page 5, after
line 17, it is proposed to insert the fol¬
lowing :

Any person who shall employ any alien
not duly admitted by an immigration officer
or not lawfully entitled to enter or to reside
in the United States under the terms of
this act, or under any other law relating
to the immigration or expulsion of aliens,
when such person knows or has reasonable
grounds to believe that such alien is not
lawfully within the United States, shall be
guilty of a felony, and upon conviction
thereof shall be punished by a fine not ex¬
ceeding $2,000, or by imprisonment for a
term not exceeding 1 year, or both, for each
alien in respect to whom any violation of
this section occurs.

Mr. STENNIS. I thank the Chair for
having the amendment read, and I wish
to point out that it applies not to each
general offense, but to each alien who
might be involved in the transaction.

Mr. CHAVEZ. Mr. President, will the
Senator from Mississippi yield to me?

Mr. STENNIS. Of course. I am happy
to yield to the Senator from New Mexico.

Mr. CHAVEZ. The Senator from Mis¬
sissippi knows how hard I have worked
in trying to have provisions adopted
dealing with immigrants who have come
into this country illegally,

Mr. STENNIS. The Senator from New
Mexico has been very helpful.

Mr. CHAVEZ. I have consistently been
against the wetbacks, for several rea¬
sons, including the fact that we have
sufficient local labor to take care of the
workload.

But in matters of law I endorse the
idea that all must be treated alike. Not¬
withstanding the fact that I should like
to see provided some kind of punishment
for anyone who premeditatedly and
knowingly, according to American law,
employs wetbacks, I could not in con¬
science support this particular amend¬
ment, which makes a specialty of pun¬
ishing the farmer. If the law were to
apply generally to everyone, and then
the farmer, knowingly, premeditatedly,
and with full knowledge and intent, vio¬
lated the law, I might be for some such,
provision.

But when it is proposed that under a
certain set of circumstances the farmer
is to be held guilty of an offense entirely
different from any offense heretofore de¬
scribed in the criminal statutes, I cannot
in conscience support such an amend¬
ment.

Mr. STENNIS. I appreciate the Sen¬
ator’s contribution.

I now yield the floor.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The
question is on agreeing to the amend¬
ment, as modified, offered by the Senator
from Illinois [Mr. Douglas!.

Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr. President. I
merely wish to take a minute or so to
state my views upon this matter.

I should like to establish the motive
and purpose of the amendment of the
Senator from Illinois. The original bill,
which was jointly prepared by the Sen¬
ator from West Virginia [Mr. Kilgore!
and myself, went even further than does
the pending bill. However, we found,
after many conferences with immigra¬
tion officials and with others interested,
that as a practical matter such drastic
regulations could not be applied under
present circumstances without an injus¬
tice being done to farmers who, in har¬
vesting their crops, desired to employ
wetbacks.

I therefore have to oppose this amend¬
ment; but I believe that in the omnibus
immigration bill, which is designed to
attack the general over-all problem of
aliens, including wetbacks, which is now
on the Senate calendar, an amendment
might be adopted similar in language to
that proposed by the Senator from Illi¬
nois. But here we have an altogether
different problem.

Time is of the essence, and all the
information we received was to the effect
that this bill is about as strong a measure
as we can pass and still solve the problem
of the farmer, involving the labor 'he
needs to harvest his crop, and at the
same time protect immigration into this
country. The immigration officials have
wholeheartedly agreed to the language of
the bill now before the Senate.

Mr. CAIN. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. MAGNUSON. I yield the floor.

Mr. CAIN. I wish to ask my colleague
a question about the pending amend¬
ment, if I may.

My understanding of the amendment
is that if a farmer unintentionally hired
50 wetbacks, he would be subject, under
the terms of the amendment, to a pos¬
sible jail sentence of 50 years and a fine
of $50,000. Am I correct in that under¬
standing?

Mr. MAGNUSON. I may say to my
colleague that it will probably be a rare
case when a farmer would be sent to
jail for an offense like the one provided
for. When the burden is placed upon
the farmer to do something, which I
think is technically the case here, he is
likely to find himself in court, and it will
then become a question whether he did
make reasonable inquiry, and the court
can decide that in any way it wishes.

I think there would be an injustice
done, in this particular situation, be¬
cause a farmer sometimes has to employ
labor bn short notice. He has little
time, perhaps, and is somewhat lax in
making inquiry, and he may be caught.
That is why I think this matter should
be taken up in connection with the gen¬
eral immigration law.

Mr. CAIN. My question applies to the
amendment as written. I am concerned
with its potentials. I think, from a
reading of it, it means potentially that

No. 18- 4

820 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE

a farmer is subject to a thousand-dollar
fine and a year in jail, or both, for each
alien discovered on his premises.

Mr. MAGNUSON. And it puts the
burden on him affirmatively to act in
some way. How the courts would deter¬
mine whether that was adequate or rea¬
sonable, I would not know.

Mr. CAIN. I thank my colleague.

Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, I
ask unanimous consent that a copy of
the report of the committee on the pend¬
ing bill be printed immediately following
the address by the Senator from Wash¬
ington.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is
there objection?

There being no objection, the report
(No. 1145) was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

The Committee on the Judiciary, to which
was referred the bill (S. 1851) to assist in.
preventing aliens from entering or remain¬
ing in the United States illegally, having
considered the same, reports favorably
thereon with an amendment in the nature
of a substitute and recommends that the
bill, as amended, do pass.

AMENDMENT

Strike all after the enacting clause and
insert in lieu thereof the following:

“That section 8 of the Immigration Act
of 1917 (39 Stat. 880; 8 U. S. C. 144), is here¬
by amended to read:

“ ‘Sec. 8. (a) Any person, including the
owner, operator, pilot, master, commanding
officer, agent, or consignee of any means of
transportation who—

“‘(1) brings into or lands in the United
States, by any means of transportation or
otherwise, or attempts, by himself or through
another, to bring into or land in the United
States, by any means of transportation or
otherwise;

“‘(2) knowing that he is in the United
States in violation of law, and knowing or
having reasonable grounds to believe that
his last entry into the United States occurred
less than 3 years prior thereto, transports,
or moves, or attempts to transport or move,
within the United States by means of trans¬
portation or otherwise, in furtherance of
such violation of law;

“‘(3) willfully or knowingly conceals,
harbors, or shields from detection, or at¬
tempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from
detection, in any place, including any build¬
ing or any means of transportation; or

“‘(4) willfully or knowingly encourages
or induces, or attempts to encourage or in¬
duce, either directly or indirectly, the entry
into the United States of any alien, includ¬
ing an alien seaman, not duly admitted by
an immigration officer or not lawfully en¬
titled to enter or reside within the United
States under the terms of this act or any
other law relating to the immigration or
expulsion of aliens, shall be guilty of a fel¬
ony, and upon conviction thereof shall be
punished by a fine not exceeding $2,000 or
by imprisonment for a term not exceeding
5 years, or both, for each alien in respect
to whom any violation of this subsection
occurs: Provided, however. That for the pur¬
poses of this section, employment (includ¬
ing the usual and normal practices incident
to employment) shall not be deemed to con¬
stitute harboring.

“‘(b) No officer or person shall have au¬
thority to make any arrest for a violation of
any provision of this section except officers
and employees of the United States Immi¬
gration and Naturalization Service desig¬
nated by the Attorney General, either indi¬
vidually or as a member of a class, and all
other officers of the United States whose duty
it is to enforce criminal laws.

“‘(c) When the Attorney General or any
district director or any assistant district di¬
rector of the Immigration and Naturalization
Service has information indicating a reason¬
able probability that in any designated lands
or other property aliens are illegally within
the United States, he may issue his warrant-
authorizing the immigration officer named
therein to go upon or within such desig¬
nated lands or other property other than a
dwelling in which the warrant states there
may be aliens illegally within the United
States, for the purpose of interrogating such
aliens concerning their right to enter or to
be or remain in the United States. Such
warrant shall state therein the time of day
or night for its use and the period of its
validity which in no case shall be for more
than 30 days.’

“Sec. 2. The last proviso to the paragraph
headed 'Bureau of Immigration’ in title IV
of the act of February 27, 1925 (43 Stat. 1049;
8 U. S. C. 110), as amended by the act of
August 7, 1946 (60 Stat. 865), is hereby fur¬
ther amended so that clause No. 2 shall read;

“‘(2) within a reasonable distance from
any external boundary of the United States,
to board and search for aliens any vessel
within the territorial waters of the United
States and any railway car, aircraft, convey¬
ance, or vehicle, and within a distance of 25
miles from any such external boundary to
have access to private lands, but not dwell¬
ings, for the purpose of patrolling the border
to prevent the illegal entry of aliens into the
United States, and’ ”

PURPOSE OP THE BILL

The purpose of the bill, as amended, is to
overcome a deficiency in the present law by
making it an offense to harbor or conceal
aliens who have entered this country ille¬
gally and to strengthen the law generally in
preventing aliens from entering or remaining
in the United States illegally.

STATEMENT

While section 8 of the Immigration Act of
1917 (8 U. S. C. 144) purports to make it an
offense to harbor or conceal aliens who have
entered this country illegally, the Supreme
Court in United States v. Evans (333 U. S.
483), held that the existing statute does not
provide a penalty for such an offense. The
instant bill, as amended, corrects this defi¬
ciency and provides upon conviction a fine
not exceeding $2,000 or imprisonment for a
term not exceeding 5 years, or both.

The bill as initially introduced also pro¬
vided that any “employee of the Immigration
and Naturalization Service authorized and
designated under regulations prescribed by
the Attorney General, whether individually
or as one of a class, shall have power and
authority while wearing his official insignia
or presenting his official credentials and en¬
gaged in the performance of his duties in the
administration of laws relating to the immi¬
gration and expulsion of aliens, to go upon
or within any place of employment other
than a dwelling within or upon which he be¬
lieves there are aliens who are illegally with¬
in the United States, for the purpose of in-

Existing Law

BRINGING IN OR HARBORING OR CONCEALING
CERTAIN ALIENS; PENALTY

February 5

terrogating such aliens concerning their
right to be or remain in the United States.”

The bill, as amended, substitutes for the
above-quoted language of the bill as initially
introduced an administrative search warrant
procedure which reads as follows:

“(c) When the Attorney General or any
district director or any assistant district
director of the Immigration and Naturali¬
zation Service has information indicating a
reasonable probability that in any designated
lands or other property aliens are illegally
within the United States, he may issue his
warrant authorizing the immigration officer
named therein to go upon or within such
designated lands or other property other
than a dwelling in which the warrant states
there may be aliens illegally within the
United States, for the purpose of interrogat¬
ing such aliens concerning their right to
enter or to be or remain in the United States.
Such warrant shall state therein the time
of day or night for its use and the period
of its validity which in no case shall be for
more than 30 days.”

It is the intention of the committee that
there shall not be more than one assistant
district director in any district who may is¬
sue administrative warrants. On the Mexican
border where there are three districts of the
Immigration and Naturalization Service,
there will be three district directors and
three assistant district directors who will be
authorized to issue administrative warrants,
making a total of six officials who will be so
authorized. It is felt that the administra¬
tive search warrant procedure as provided in
the bill will be conducive to effective enforce¬
ment of the immigration laws but will at
the same time safeguard the rights of the
property owners.

The bill, as amended, also strengthens the
enforcement procedures of the Immigration
and Naturalization Service by amending
present law so that enforcement officers may,
within a distance of 25 miles from any ex¬
ternal boundary of the United States, have
access to private lands but not dwellings for
the purpose of patrolling the border to pre¬
vent the illegal entry of aliens into the
United States.

The bill, as amended, also provides that
employment (including the usual and nor¬
mal practices incident to employment) of an
alien illegally in the United States shall not
be deemed to constitute harboring. It is the
intention of the committee that this will not,
however, preclude prosecution of an em¬
ployer who violates other provisions of the
act.

The committee, after consideration of all
of the facts, is of the opinion that the bill
(S. 1851), as amended, should be enacted.

CHANGES IN THE PRESENT LAW

In compliance with subsection (4) of rule
XXIX of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
changes in existing laws made by the bill, as
reported, are shown in the following parallel
tables (existing law is shown in one column;
proposed law is shown in the parallel col¬
umn) :

Proposed Law

That section 8 of the Immigration Act of
1917 (39 Stat. 880; 8 U. S. C. 144) is hereby
amended to read:

“Sec. 8. (a) Any person including the
owner, operator, pilot, master, commanding
officer, agent or consignee of any means of
transportation who—

"(1) brings into or lands in the United
States, by any means of transportation or
otherwise, or attempts, by himself or through
another, to bring into or land in the United
States, by any means of transportation or
otherwise;

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE 821

1952

Existing Law
or to reside within the United States under
the terms of this act, shall be deemed guilty
of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction
thereof shall be punished by a fine not ex¬
ceeding $2,000 and my imprisonment for a
term not exceeding 5 years, for each and
every alien so landed or brought in or at¬
tempted to be landed or brought in.

' *

(ACT APPROVED AUGUST 7, 1946 (60 STAT. 865;

8 U. S. C. 110) ) (AMENDING THE ACT OF FEB¬
RUARY 27, 1925)

Any employee of the Immigration and
Naturalization Service authorized so to do
under regulations prescribed by the Com¬
missioner of Immigration and Naturaliza¬
tion with the approval of the Attorney Gen¬
eral, shall have power without warrant (1)
* * * (2) to board and search for aliens

any vessel within the territorial waters of the
United States, railway car, aircraft, convey¬
ance, or vehicle, within a reasonable dis¬
tance from any external boundary of the
United States; and.

Mr. LEHMAN. Mr. President, I
should like to ask the junior Senator
from Washington a question. As I
heard his inquiry of his colleague, he
used the word “unintentional.” Am I
correct in that?

Proposed Law

“(2) knowing that he is in the United
States in violation of law, and knowing or
having reasonable grounds to believe that
his last entry into the United States oc¬
curred less than 3 years prior thereto, trans¬
ports or moves, or attempts to transport or
move, within the United States by means
of transportation or otherwise, in further¬
ance of such violation of law;

“(3) wilfully or knowingly conceals, har¬
bors, or shields from detection, or attempts
to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection,
in any place, including any building, or any
means of transportation; or

“(5) willfully or knowingly encourages or
induces, or attempts to encourage or induce,
either directly or indirectly, the entry into
the United States of any alien, including
an alien seaman, not duly admitted by an
immigration officer or not lawfully entitled
to enter or reside within the United States
under the terms of this act or any other
law relating to the immigration or expulsion
of aliens, shall be guilty of a felony, and
upon conviction thereof shall be punished
by a fine not exceeding $2,000 or by imprison¬
ment for a term not exceeding 5 years, or
both, for each alien in respect to whom any
violation of this subsection occurs: Provided,
however. That for the purposes of this sec¬
tion, employment (including the usual and
normal practices incident to employment)
shall not be deemed to constitute harboring.

“(c) When the Attorney General or any
district director or any assistant district
director of the Immigration and Naturaliza¬
tion Service has information indicating a
reasonable probability that in any desig¬
nated lands or other property aliens are
illegally within the United States, he may
issue his warrant authorizing the immigra¬
tion officer named therein to go upon or
within such designated lands or other prop¬
erty other than a dwelling in which the
warrant states there may be aliens illegally
within the United States, for the purpose
of interrogating such aliens concerning their
right to enter or to be or remain in the
United States. Such warrant shall state
therein the time of day or night for its use
and the period of its validity which in no
case shall be for more than 30 davs.”

“(2) within a reasonable distance from
any external boundary of the United States,
to board and search for aliens any vessel
within the territorial waters of the United
States and any railway car, aircraft, convey¬
ance, or vehicle, and within a distance of 25
miles from any such external boundary to
have access to provide lands, but not dwell¬
ings, for the purpose of patroling the border
to prevent the illegal entry of aliens into the
United States, and."

Mr. CAIN. The Senator is correct.

Mr. LEHMAN. I may say that that
does not reflect the purpose of the
amendment under any circumstances.
I might ask the Senator from Illinois to
read the amendment.

Mr. CAIN. Then I would ask the
same question I propounded, deleting the
word “unintentional.”

Mr. LEHMAN. If the Senator deletes
the word “unintentional,” it changes the
entire purpose of the amendment.

Mr. DOUGLAS. Does the Senator
from Washington wish to know the
wording of the amendment?

Mr. CAIN. I was asking my col¬
league a question with reference to the
amendment. If I have been misin¬
formed or am uninformed, I should be
grateful for any explanation the Sena¬
tor from Illinois wishes to make.

Mr. DOUGLAS. The amendment I
offered would impose a liability on the
employer only when he “knows or has
reasonable grounds to believe that such
alien is not lawfully within the United
States.” He must know or have reason¬
able grounds to believe.

Mr. MAGNUSON. He must do some¬
thing else also; he must make reason¬
able inquiry.

Mr. DOUGLAS. No; that require-
ment-has been eliminated in the amend¬
ment as later presented, to accord with
the suggestion made by the senior Sen¬
ator from Oregon.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The
question is on agreeing to the amend¬
ment as modified offered by the Senator
from Illinois [Mr. Douglas].

Mr. DOUGLAS and other Senators
asked for the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered, and
the Chief Clerk called the roll.

Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. I announce
that the Senator from Connecticut [Mr.
Benton], the Senator from Rhode Is¬
land [Mr. Green], the Senator from
Tennessee [Mr. Kefauver], and the
Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Kerr] are
absent on official business.

Mr. SALTONSTALL. I announce that
the Senators from Nebraska [Mr. Butler
and Mr. Seaton], the Senator from Iowa
[Mr. Hickenlooper], the Senators from
Kansas [Mr. Schoeppel and Mr. Carl¬
son], and the Senator from Wisconsin
[Mr. Wiley] are absent on official busi¬
ness.

The Senator from Illinois [Mr. Dirk-
sen] and the Senator from Ohio [Mr.
Taft] are necessarily absent.

The Senator from Maine [Mr. Brew¬
ster], the Senator from Pennsylvania
[Mr. Duff] , and the Senator from Wis¬
consin [Mr. McCarthy] are detained on
official business.

On this vote the Senator from Wis¬
consin [Mr. McCarthy] is paired with
the Senator from Maine [Mr. Brewster] .
If present and voting, the Senator from
Wisconsin would vote “yea,” and the
Senator from Maine would vote “nay.”

The result was announced—yeas 12,
nays 69, as follows:

YEAS—12

Cordon

Johnston, S. C.

Morse

Douglas

Lehman

Murray

Flanders

Monroney

Neely

Humphrey

Moody

NAYS—69

Pastore

Aiken

Cain

Eastland

Anderson

Capehart

Ecton

Bennett

Case

Ellender

Brlcker

Chavez

Ferguson

Bridges

Clements

Frear

Butler, Md.

Connally

Fulbright

Byrd

Dworshak

George

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE

February 5

822

GiUette

Lodge

Robertson

Hayden

Long

Russell

Hendrickson

Magnuson

Saltonstall

Hennings

Malone

Smathers

Hill

Martin

Smith, Maine

Hoey

Maybank

Smith, N. J.

Holland

McCarran

Smith, N. C.

Hunt

McClellan

Sparkman

Ives

McFarland

Stennis

Jenner

McKeUar

Thye

Jofinson, Colo.

McMahon

Tobey

Johnson, Tex.

Millikin

Underwood

Kem

Mundt

Watkins

Kilgore

Nixon

Welker

Knowland

O'Conor

Williams

Langer

O'Mahoney

Young

NOT VOTING—15

Benton

Dufi

McCarthy

Brewster

Green

Schoeppel

Butler, Nebr.

Eiekenlocper

Seaton

Carlson

Kefauver

Taft

Dirksen

Kerr

Wiley

So Mr. Douglas’ modified amendment
to the committee amendment was re¬
jected.

Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, I send
to the desk another amendment which
I offer, and which I should like to have
the clerk read.

The amendment which I am now sub¬
mitting is identical with the previous
amendment except for the fact that the
words “or has reasonable grounds to
believe” are omitted. In this amend¬
ment we have the single standard, that
it is a felony when an employer “knows
that such alien is not lawfully within
the United States.”

Objection was made to the previous
amendment on the ground that it in¬
cluded the phrase “or has reasonable
grounds to believe” that the alien ille¬
gally entered. Some Senators seemed to
feel it would be unfair if the employer
merely had reasonable grounds so to be¬
lieve, that he could be subjected to a
penalty. This objection has been re¬
moved by the omission of the phrase re¬
ferred to. I hope the objectors will not
further denude the amendment of its
clothing. It is now down to the irreduc¬
ible minimum, namely, employment with
knowledge that the laborer is an illegal
entrant; and I see no good reason why
the committee and the Senate should not
accept the amendment. I hope very
much that it will.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The
amendment offered by the Senator from
Illinois to the committee amendment will
be stated.

The Chief Clerk. On page 5, after
line 17, in the committee amendment, it
is proposed to insert;

Any person who shall employ any alien
not duly admitted by an immigration officer
or not lawfully entitled to enter or to re¬
side within the United States, under the
terms of this Act or any other law relating
to the immigration or expulsion of aliens,
when such person knows that such alien is
not lawfully within the United States, shall
be guilty of a felony, and upon conviction
thereof shall be punished by a fine of not
exceeding $2,000, or by imprisonment for a
term not exceeding 1 year, or both, for each
alien in respect to whom any violation of this
section occurs.

Mr. CORDON. Mr. President, I ask
for the yeas and nays.

Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr. President, if
the Senator from Illinois will yield, I be¬
lieve that the question of acting know¬
ingly is provided for in the bill.

Mr. FERGUSON. Jdr. President, will
the Senator from Washington please
speak louder?

Mr. MAGNUSON. I believe the bill
now includes a penalty if one knowingly
does these things, and the bill says that
mere employment is not to be construed
as knowing employment. That is the
only difference. I see no objection to the
amendment offered by the Senator from
Illinois, with that one exception, that
we do say that mere employment is not
to be construed as knowing employment.

Mr. DOUGLAS. As I read the bill
there is no specific inclusion of employ¬
ment. At page 4, in subsection 4 of the
bill, there is the specific exemption that
employment shall not be deemed to con¬
stitute harboring.

Mr. MAGNUSON. If the Senator will
read the bill he will see that subsection 4
of section 8 says: “ Provided , however.
That for the purposes of this section”—
that is, doing wilfully or knowingly what
is proscribed—“ (including the usual and
normal practices incident to employ¬
ment) shall not be deemed to constitute
harboring.”

Mr. DOUGLAS. I wish to point out
that the bill provides that employment
shall not be deemed to constitute har¬
boring.

Mr. MAGNUSON. The bill refers to
knowingly and wilfully harboring. The
Senator from Illinois would eliminate
that proviso by his amendment.

Mr. DOUGLAS. No, I would not
change that proviso in subsection (4) on
page 4; I would merely add my amend¬
ment after line 17 on page 5 of the bill.

Mr. EASTLAND. Mr. President, will
the Senator from Illinois explain his
amendment? I do not understand it.

Mr. DOUGLAS. The amendment
merely provides that if an employer
knows that an alien whom he employs
is an illegal entrant he shall be guilty
of a felony?

Mr. EASTLAND. Is that the amend¬
ment?

Mr. DOUGLAS. Yes.

Mr. EASTLAND. Mr. President, I
cannot conceive of any amendment
which could be more unfair to the farmer
or the Mexican involved than the
amendment proposed by the Senator
from Illinois. Some farms of the agri¬
cultural industry of the Midwest, in¬
cluding that of the Senator’s own State
of Illinois, are founded to a considerable
extent upon Mexican labor. Mexicans
who go to Illinois to work live in south
Texas. They go to Indiana, Michigan,
Ohio, and Illinois to harvest vegetables.
Most of those Mexicans entered this
country illegally 30 or 40 years ago.
They have reared families in the United
States. I know one such family which
has lost a son in Europe in the American
Army. The farmer knows that those
Mexicans came into the country illegal¬
ly 30 or 40 years ago. They cannot be
deported from the United States. If an
attempt were made to deport such a
man he would be entitled to a stay of
deportation. The farmer knows that
many of them are illegally in the coun¬
try, because the workers usually go to the
same farms year after year to do that
work for the farmers.

The amendment offered by the Sena¬
tor from Illinois would make a farmer
in the Midwest and in the Northwest
who hired such Mexicans, who he knew
came to this country illegally 20, 30, or
40 years ago, and some of whom have
reared families in this country, guilty
of a felony. I say that nothing could
be more unfair to the farmers, and noth¬
ing could be more unfair to the Mexi¬
cans, because it would eliminate such
laborers from the economic life of this
country. I submit that the amendment
should be defeated.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The
yeas and nays have been requested. Is
the request sufficiently seconded?

The yeas and nays were not ordered.

Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, will
the Senator from Illinois yield for a
question?

Mr. DOUGLAS. I am happy to yield
to the Senator from Minnesota.

Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, the
argument of the Senator from Missis¬
sippi appears to me to be somewhat il¬
logical for the purposes of this debate
and for the purposes of a legitimate
consideration of the question of immi¬
gration. Am I to understand, Mr. Presi¬
dent, that although there are illegal
entrants in the United States, nothing
is to be done about them? Am I to
understand, because an illegal act was
committed, which' apparently has be¬
come the accepted practice in some
areas, that nothing is to be done about
it, but that the act is to be condoned?
If so, Mr. President, why do not we take
down the imm igration bars entirely?
There are fine citizens of Germany who
would like to come to the United States.
There are fine citizens of the Scandina¬
vian countries who would like to come to
the United States. We deport such
people every day. They are people of
the highest type. There is nothing to
the argument that an illegal entrant
who has been in the country for a con¬
siderable period of time should for some
reason or ether be accepted. If that is
to be the argument of the Senator from
Mississippi, I would say that it is time
a bill were introduced which would give
these people citizenship status so that
they can remain in this country in honor
and respectability.

Mr. EASTLAND. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?

Mr. DOUGLAS. I believe I have the
floor, Mr. President.

Mr. EASTLAND. Mr. President, will
the Senator from Illinois yield so that I
may ask a question of the Senator from
Minnesota?

_ Mr. DOUGLAS. Yes, certainly.

Mr. EASTLAND. Does the Senator
from Minnesota realize that the men
involved, who came to this country from
Mexico 30 or 40 years ago, cannot be
deported from the United States under
the laws of this country?

Mr. HUMPHREY. I will accept the
Senator’s statement for the purpose of
the argument.

Mr. EASTLAND. But that the
amendment would deprive such men
of a chance to make a living and would
doubtlessly put farmers in jail?

1952

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE

823

Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President. I
merely say that I shall accept the Sen¬
ator’s statement for the purpose of the
argument. The Senator from Missis¬
sippi is a member of the Judiciary Com¬
mittee. which has jurisdiction over im¬
migration matters. I would say to him
that rather than allowing the poor
souls to continue to live in our country
under a cloud of illegality, if the situa¬
tion is as the Senator from Mississippi
has pointed out, the time has come to
introduce a bill to blanket such people
into American citizenship, so that they
may enjoy the privileges of citizenship.

However, Mr. President, I am not will¬
ing to accept the argument on the basis
on which it is propounded. I say that
in this Capitol Building today hearings
were held at which members of our
Government, distinguished leaders in
the field of religion, and distinguished
leaders in community action appeared
and gave the committee details of the
problem that confronts us. I should
like to have Senators answer the state¬
ment of Archbishop Lucey, of San
Antonio, Tex., who testified before the
committee with respect to the nature of
the wetback problem. I should like to
have Senators say why it is, even though
500,000 deportations of wetbacks took
place last year, that nevertheless we still
have a million or more wetbacks living
In this country. The explanation, as was
pointed out in the testimony, lies in the
lack of enforcement. Leaders of re¬
ligion, lawyers, and members of the Gov¬
ernment have testified that unless the
wetback legislation is tightened up
along the lines proposed by the Senator
from Illinois, there is no solution to the
problem. There may be no real solu¬
tion in any event, but at least we can
tighten up the law.

The Senator from Illinois surely has
drawn up an amendment which is as
reasonable as it is humanly possible to
draw such an amendment. The amend¬
ment provides that man who knowingly
employs an illegal entrant will be sub¬
ject to the penalty of the law. The only
people who could possibly want to get by
without having that kind of amendment
written into the law are people who
would knowingly employ illegal entrants
for the .purpose of their own special
profit, gain, or exploitation.

There are plenty of illegal entrants
into the United States. The Government
of Mexico is sick and tried of having the
Government of the United States suck
in illegal entrants, exploiting them, and
then shipping them back of the process
of deportation. Every month thousands
upon thousands of Mexicans come across
the borders illegally. They do a few
weeks’ work, and then the immigration
officials must send them back, as many
as five or six times a year. That is what
we call the wetback problem. Anything
that can be done to tighten up the law
ought to be done. That is what the Sen¬
ator from Illinois is proposing to do.

Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, I
should like, in one sentence, to state
what it is we are trying to accomplish.
We are trying to eliminate the magnet
by which large numbers of Mexicans are
drawn illegally across the border. That

magnet which pulls them across the bor¬
der is the employment which is now open
to wetbacks.

The bill as reported to the Senate by
the committee does not deal with em¬
ployment within the United States of
persons illegally entering this country.
In this amendment we are trying to
reduce the volume of such illegal entries
by imposing penalties upon those who
knowingly employ illegal entrants. This
should markedly reduce the number of
such persons who cross the border. That
is our purpose—not to strike at the
farmers, not to penalize innocent per¬
sons, but to stop this flood of illegal
immigration and restrict the importa¬
tion of farm labor to the terms of the
law and our agreements with Mexico.

Mr. LEHMAN. Mr. President, will the
Senator from Illinois yield to me?

Mr. DOUGLAS. I yield.

Mr. LEHMAN. A moment ago the
Senator from Washington made the
point that the amendment is unneces¬
sary because of section 8. However,
section 8 provides for penalties or pun¬
ishment in the event of the transporta¬
tion of such persons into the United
States by illegal means, the harboring or
protection of such persons who illegally
enter the United States, namely, the
wetbacks; and that section provides for
the fining or punishment of those who
knowingly encourage or induce the im¬
migration of wetbacks into the United
States by illegal methods. However, in
that section no mention whatever is
made of employment.

As a matter of fact, the last part of
subsection (4) of section 8 does not pro¬
hibit the employment of such a person,
because that subsection provides, in
part;

Provided, however, That for the purposes
of this section, employment (including the
usual and normal practices incident to em¬
ployment) shall not be deemed to constitute
harboring.

In other words, the committee amend¬
ment would destroy one of the provi¬
sions of section 8 without in any way
substituting a prohibition against know¬
ingly employing a person who has ille¬
gally entered the United States.

Mr. DOUGLAS. That is correct.

Mr. President, I am ready to yield the
floor.

Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr. President, I
should like to make a short statement
at this time. Reference has been made
to a statement which I made a moment
ago. What I said was that we are try¬
ing to prevent* illegal entry into the
United States and we are trying to take
care of violations by persons who know¬
ingly employ or harbor aliens whom they
know to be illegally in the United States.
But we would provide that the mere act
of employment itself shall not be consid¬
ered as knowingly harboring an alien
who illegally has entered the United
States.

If the Senator from Illinois and the
Senator from New York will examine
Senate bill 2550, Calendar No. 1072, a
bill to revise the laws relating to immi¬
gration, naturalization, and nationality,
they will find that it is an omnibus immi¬
gration bill which has been reported

from the Committee on the Judiciary.
That bill covers all the evils which have
been referred to by the Senator from
Minnesota; and if the bill does not cover
them, we hope to include in the bill
provision for covering them.

So, I hope the Senator from Illinois
will do in the case of that bill what he
is trying to do in this case if he believes
the omnibus bill is not so strong as he
thinks it should be.

I do not see much objection to the
amendment of the Senator from Illi¬
nois in connection with this minor mat¬
ter, and I would be perfectly willing to
accept the amendment, so far as it is
within my power to do so. However,
I point out that we have on the calendar
the omnibus bill to which I have re¬
ferred, namely, Senate bill 2550, and it
will take care of the matter. Further¬
more, we have ready, in connection with
that bill, some amendments in the na¬
ture of a substitute, and I am a cospon¬
sor of some of them.

Mr. LEHMAN. Let me ask the Sen¬
ator from Washington whether it is a
fact that Senate bill 2550 and the
amendments in the nature of a substi¬
tute have not yet been acted on by the
Senate.

Mr. MAGNUSON. That is true. The
bill has been reported from the Judi¬
ciary Committee, however. Further¬
more, the House committee held long
hearings on a similar bill, and is ready to
report it. For a very long time we have
been hoping to have the Senate take up
the entire subject of illegal immigration,
which the Senator from Minnesota has
discussed; and I am sure Senate bill
2550 will be sufficiently strong to cover
that subject.

Again I say that I do not see much ob¬
jection to the amendment submitted by
the Senator from Illinois, because he
would leave in the exception as to mere
employment.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The
question is on agreeing to the modified
amendment of the Senator from Illinois
[Mr. Douglas] to the committee amend¬
ment.

Mr. LONG. Mr. President, since there
probably will not be a yea-and-nay vote
on the amendment of the Senator from
Illinois to the committee amendment, I
should like to say for the Record that I
shall vote for the Senator’s amendment
in its present form. The change which
has been made by the Senator from Illi¬
nois is sufficient, so far as I am con¬
cerned, when I consider the present ver¬
sion and the former version of the
amendment, to justify me in voting for
the amendment as it now has been modi¬
fied

Mr. NEELY. Mr. President, in the
faint hope of checking the epidemic of
mouth disease which again has broken
out in the Senate, I ask unanimous con¬
sent that subsequent debate on the pend¬
ing measure be limited as follows: Ten
minutes on each amendment and 3 hours
on the bill, for each side.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is
there objection to the unanimous-con¬
sent request of the Senator from West
Virginia?

824 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE February 5

Mr. McCLELLAN. Mr. President, re¬
serving the right to object, let me say
that I did not understand that the pro¬
posal includes a provision in regard to
the germaneness of amendments. In the
absence of such a provision, I shall be
compelled to object. I have no objection
personally; however, without the inclu¬
sion of such a provision regarding ger¬
maneness, I certainly must object.

Mr. NEELY. Mr. President, the per¬
tinent suggestion of the able Senator
from Arkansas is cheerfully accepted.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The
Question is on agreeing to the unani¬
mous-consent request, as modified, of the
Senator from West Virginia. Is there
objection? Without objection, it is so
ordered.

The question now is on agreeing to the
modified amendment of the Senator from
Illinois to the committee amendment.

Mr. CORDON. Mr. President, I am
surprised at the opposition which has
been evidenced to this amendment, after
it has been cut down to a mere skeleton
and there can be no question that a
person must knowingly be in violation
of the law before he can stand convicted
of violating it.

However, there seems to be some con¬
cern that the bill might work an injus¬
tice in the case of persons who unlaw¬
fully entered the United States many
years ago, but who by virtue of the lapse
of time cannot be deported from the
United States. With reference to per¬
sons of that type, I suggest that they no
longer are unlawfully in the United
States. They may have entered unlaw¬
fully; but when the right to deport and
arrest and convict them lapses, there is
no law against their remaining in the
United States, and any person who em¬
ploys them would not be subject to the
prohibition or the penalty provided in
the amendment.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The
question is on agreeing to the modified
amendment of the Senator from Illinois
to the committee amendment. [Putting
the question.]

The Chair is in doubt.

Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, I
call for a division.

Mr. EASTLAND. Mr. President, I sug¬
gest the absence of a quorum.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The
clerk will call the roll.

The Chief Clerk called the roll, and
the following Senators answered to their
names;

Aiken

George

Malone

Anderson

Gillette

Martin

Bennett

Green

Maybank

Brewster

Hayden

McCarran

Bricker

Hendrickson

McCarthy

Bridges

Hennings

McClellan

Butler, Md.

Hill

McFarland

Byrd

Hoey

McKellar

Cain

Holland

McMahon

Capehart

Humphrey

Mlllikin

Case

Hunt

Monroney

Chavez

Ives

Moody

Clements

Jenner

Morse

Connally

Johnson, Colo.

Mundt

Cordon

Johnson, Tex.

Murray

Douglas

Johnston, S. C.

Neely

Dworshak

Kem

Nixon

Eastland

Kilgore

O’Conor

Ecton

Knowland

O’Mahoney

Ellender

Langer

Pastore

Ferguson

Lehman

Robertson

Flanders

Lodge

Russell

Frear

Long

Saltonstall

Fulbright

Magnuson

Smathers

Smith, Maine Stennis Watkins

Smith, N. J. Thye Welker

Smith, N. 0. Tobey Williams

Sparkman Underwood Young

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. A
quorum is present. The question is on
agreeing to the second amendment of the
Senator from Illinois [Mr. Douglas].
[Putting the question.] The “noes” ap¬
pear to have it.

Mr. DOUGLAS. I request a division.

On a division, the amendment was re¬
jected.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The
question is on agreeing to the committee
amendment.

The amendment was agreed to.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The
bill is open to amendment. If there be
no other amendment to be offered, the
question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.

The bill was ordered to be engrossed
for a third reading, read the third time,
and passed. __ s

ADVICE TO MR. NEWBOLD MORRIS

Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. President, Mr.
Newbold Morris, new special assistant to
the Attorney General, was appointed by
the President to look into the question
of corruption in Government. After
being named, Mr. Charles Potter, a
Representative from Michigan who has
been a member of the House Un-Ameri¬
can Activities Committee, disclosed to the
public what the record of the Un-Ameri¬
can Activities Committee showed.

Representative Potter has rendered
yeoman service to his State and to the
Nation. He has given genuine service to
the committee. He is a firm believer in
the principles of the Constitution and in
the fundamentals of America. In giving
the public this information, he was ren¬
dering a service. In effect, what he was
doing was giving the public what the
record shows.

The Senator from South Dakota [Mr.
Mundt] saw the printed remarks of Mr.
Newbold Morris with reference to Repre¬
sentative Potter. Today the Senator
from South Dakota wrote a letter to Mr.
Newbold Morris, and I think it is worthy
of the attention not only of Members of
the Senate, but others who read the
Congressional Record. I ask unani¬
mous consent that the letter be printed
in the Record, as part of my remarks.

There being no objection, the letter
was ordered to be printed in the Record,
as follows:

Mr. Newbold Morris,

Special Assistant to the Attorney General,
The Justice. Department,

Washington, D. C.

Dear Mr. Morris: I was greatly disturbed
this morning by newspaper stories appear¬
ing in the morning press reporting a state¬
ment issued by Congressman Charles Pot¬
ter, of Michigan, and your reply to the Con¬
gressman’s statements.

In addition to the fact that the suggestion
that the Special Assistant to the Attorney
General selected by Mr. McGrath to investi¬
gate corruption in the Federal Government
may have been associated with several well-
known communistic fronts in this country,

I am disturbed by the nature of your reply
to the Potter statement and your failure to
categorically deny the associations attrib¬
uted to you by Mr. Potter.

Congressman Potter is a friend of mine.
He is a distinguished Member of Congress

from the State of Michigan whose veracity
is well established, and any imputations
from you that his reputation and veracity
are in doubt are grossly unwarranted.

I regret also that you permitted yourself
to indulge in the smear tactics of the Com¬
munists by implying that Congressman
Potter is a man of no significance since you
are quoted in the Washington Times-Herald
of this morning as saying:

“I never heard of Congressman Potter.
Although I have no knowledge of his repu¬
tation for veracity, his statement is too
asinine for reply. /

“I never have been a membefc of any Com¬
munist-front organization—^unless he is
referring to the American So/nety for Russian
Relief.” - /

Really, Mr. Morris, thatfs a rather shock¬
ing statement since Congressman Potter is
not only a decorated veteran of World War
II, who lost both of hfs legs while leading
the One Hundred and Ninth Battalion of the
Twenty-eighth Infantry Division in an at¬
tack near Colmar, France, but he also has
established a reputation for himself in Con¬
gress as an honest, hard-hitting, patriotic
American who is held in high esteem by
colleagues on both sides of the aisle. He
was awarded the Order of the Purple Heart
with two clusters.

It is even/more startling that you have
never heard Of Congressman Potter by virtue
of the fact that the Washington Sunday Star
for January 13 of this year carried a large
feature article on Congressman Potter on
his being recognized as one of the 10 out¬
standing young Americans in the Nation. He
was given this award by the Junior Cham¬
ber of Commerce, which is a most respon¬
sible and respectable organization. Con¬
gressman Potter was selected by a panel of
12 great Americans, including such distin¬
guished citizens as Hon. Frank Pace, Secre¬
tary of the Army; William Green, president
of the American Federation of Labor; J. Ed¬
gar Hoover, Director of the Federal Bureau
of Investigation; Dean Rusk, Assistant Sec¬
retary of State, and other citizens of like
standing and significance.

Incidentally, I might offer the good-natured
suggestion that your choice of the word
“asinine” in application to Congressman
Potter’s statement was an unfortunate choice
of terms. That is the very word. President
Truman used in trying to laugh off the
original charges by Congress that the cor¬
ruption in the Federal Government which
you have been appointed to investigate and
eliminate actually exists and that they are
anything more serious than just another
“red herring.”

What most Americans are interested in, of
course, is not your opinion of Congressman
Potter, whose reputation is well established
in American history and who never has had
his name linked with any communistic or
subversive movements in this country, but
whether Or not his statement linking your
name with various communistic organiza¬
tions is factual or erroneous. On that point
the public is certainly entitled to a frank
and forthright answer, rather than simply
an ill-tempered attack upon the Congress¬
man.

As one who served for many years as a
member of the Un-American Activities Com¬
mittee of the House during the time I was
a Member of the House, your curious answer
to his specific allegations sufficiently aroused
my curiosity so that I took the time today
to examine the files of the Committee To
Investigate Un-American Activities. Frank¬
ly. I was disappointed to discover that, in
fact, the files of that committee disclose
clear evidence indicating that your name has
been associated with a number of commu¬
nistic front organizations in this country
which the Department of Justice, which has
now employed you, has listed as communistic.

So that the record may be completely
clear, therefore, and so that no Injustice

■

82d CONGRESS
2d Session

S. 1851

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

February 6,1952

Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

AN ACT

To assist in preventing aliens from entering or remaining in the

United States illegally.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-

2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That section 8 of the Immigration Act of 1917 (39 Stat.

4 880; 8 U. S. 0. 144), is hereby amended to read:

5 “Sec. 8. (a) Any person, including the owner, operator,

6 pilot, master, commanding officer, agent, or consignee of any

7 means of transportation who—

8 “ (1) brings into or lands in the United States, by

9 any means of transportation or otherwise, or attempts,

10 by himself or through another, to bring into or land in

11 the United States, by any means of transportation or
otherwise;

“ (2) knowing that lie is in the United States in vio¬
lation of law, and knowing or having reasonable grounds
to believe that his last entry into the United States oc¬
curred less than three years prior thereto, transports, or
moves, or attempts to transport or move, within the United
States by means of transportation or otherwise, in
furtherance of such violation of law;

“ (4) willfully or knowingly encourages or induces,
or attempts to encourage or induce, either directly or
indirectly, the entry into the United States of any alien,
including an alien seaman, not duly admitted by an
immigration officer or not lawfully entitled to enter or
reside within the United States under the terms of this
Act or any other law relating to the immigration or
expulsion of aliens, shall be guilty of a felony, and upon
conviction thereof shall be punished b} T a fine not exceed¬
ing $2,000 or by imprisonment for a term not exceeding
five years, or both, for each alien in respect to whom
any violation of this subsection occurs: Provided, lioiv-
ever, That for the purposes of this section, employment

(including the usual and normal practices incident to
employment) shall not he deemed to constitute harboring.
“(b) No officer or person shall have authority to make
any arrest for a violation of any provision of this section
except officers and employees of the United States Immi¬
gration and Naturalization Service designated by the At¬
torney General, either individually or as a member of a class,
and all other officers of the United States whose duty it is
to enforce criminal laws.

Sec. 2. The last proviso to the paragraph headed

1 “Bureau of Immigration” in title IV of the Act of February

2 27, 1925 (43 Stat. 1049; 8 U. S. C. 110), as amended by

3 the Act of August 7, 1946 (60 Stat. 865), is hereby further

4 amended so that clause numbered (2) shall read:

5 “(2) within a reasonable distance from any external

6 boundary of the United States, to board and search for

7 abens any vessel within the territorial waters of the

8 United States and any railway car, aircraft, convey-

9 ance, or vehicle, and within a distance of twenty-five

10 miles from any such external boundary to have access to

11 private lands, but not dwellings, for the purpose of

12 patrolling the border to prevent the illegal entry of aliens

13 into the United States, and”.

Passed the Senate February 5 (legislative day, January
10), 1952.

Attest: LESLIE L. BIFFLE,

Secretary.

C-l

fj P
CD oa

B “•
g. S-

g- s '

CTQ KS

S'?

CD e*

h3'

►t* p

Qj CD
3

(75 w
P

£ O

W g

to
e O'

®o

s a

w Q

TJl

82d Congress
2d Session

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Report
No. 1377

ASSISTING IN PREVENTING ALIENS FROM ENTERING OR
REMAINING IN THE UNITED STATES ILLEGALLY

February 19, 1952.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed

Mr. Walter, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the

following

REPORT

[To accompany S. 1851]

The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the bill
(S. 1851) to assist in preventing aliens from entering or remaining in
the United States illegally, having considered the same, report favor¬
ably thereon without amendment and recommend that the bill do
pass.

PURPOSE OF THE BILL

The purpose of the bill is to overcome a deficiency in the present
law by making it an offense to haibor or conceal aliens who have
entered this country illegally, and to strengthen the law generally in
preventing aliens from entering or remaining in the United States
illegally.

ANALYSIS OF THE BILL

This bill is designed to effectuate two of the three recommendations
made by the President in his message to Congress on July 13, 1951,
in connection with his approval of S. 984, the act amending the Agri¬
cultural Act of 1949 (Public Law 78, 82d Cong., 1st sess.).

Section 1 of this bill is designed to amend section 8 of the Immigra¬
tion Act of 1917, as amended, in light of the decision of the Supreme
Court of the United States in the case of United States v. Evans (333
U. S. 483 (1948)). _

The Court held in that case that the existing statute does not pro¬
vide a penalty for concealing and harboring aliens who are unlawfully
in the United States. The defendant was apprehended in the act of
concealing a number of aliens who had not been legally admitted to
the United States and was prosecuted pursuant to the provision of
section 8 of the above-cited act (8 U. S. C. 144). Although that

2 ALIENS ENTERING OR REMAINING IN UNITED STATES ILLEGALLY

section provides that any persons who shall bring into the United
States or shall conceal any alien not lawfully admitted shall be guilty
of a misdemeanor, the Supreme Court held that it was inadequate to
provide a penaltj* for concealing or harboring such aliens.

In holding that the statute did not provide an enforceable penalty
for the act of concealing, the Supreme Court recognized the uncer¬
tainty in the law, referred to the matter of supplying the deficiency,
and concluded its opinion by stating:

^ This is a task outside the bounds of judicial interpretation. It is better for
Congress, and more in accord with its function, to revise the statute than for us
to guess at the revision it would make. That task it can do with precision. We
could do no more than make speculation law.

Subsection (a) of this bill is designed to overcome the deficiencies
in existing section 8 as illustrated by the Supreme Court decision and
will also strengthen the statute generally. The accomplishment of
this purpose was the first recommendation made by the President in
his aforesaid message (H. Doc. 192, 82d Cong., 1st sess.).

Paragraph (1) of subsection (a) of section 1 is substantially the same
as existing law found in section 8 of the Immigration Act of 1917 (8
U. S. C. 144). Paragraph (2) of the same subdivision, punishing the
transporters of illegally entering aliens would require knowledge that
the transported alien was in the United States in violation of law and
would also require proof or reasonable grounds for belief that the
transported alien had entered the United States within the preceding

3 years.

The proviso to subdivision (a) makes it clear that the employment
of an alien, including the usual and normal practices incident thereto,
shall not subject the employer to the charge of harboring such alien.

The President, in his message of July 13, 1951, mentioned above,
requested the enactment of legislation to clearly establish the au¬
thority of personnel of the Immigration and Naturalization Service to
inspect places of emplovment, without a warrant, where they have
reason to believe that illegal immigrants are working or quartered.

Immigration officers are by statute enjoined to investigate and to
examine aliens to ascertain whether they are illegally within the
United States and to take such aliens into custody if it is found that,
they are subject to deportation. Generally speaking, it may be said
that, this authority may be exercised anywhere within the United
States with the exception of such places as are specially protected by
constitutional provisions or other laws. In such an operation of
questioning and apprehending aliens there is no invasion of the con¬
stitutional amendment which guarantees freedom from unreasonable
searches and seizures, since dwellings are not entered without warrant
and the purpose of entering private lands and properties, other than
dwellings, is to effect the arrest of aliens illegally within the United
States on the basis of positive knowledge or probable cause for the
belief that there are such aliens on the premises.

The bill in subsection (c) would require that immigration officers
have warrants to enter upon private properties, even those not dwell¬
ings, in search of aliens who are illegally in the United States.

In addition, subsection (e) makes it clear that the warrant, not
limited to a single entry, could never be effective for more than 30 days.

Section 2 of the bill relates to a problem of immigration law enforce¬
ment separate and distinct from that involving the authority of

ALIENS ENTERING OR REMAINING IN UNITED STATES ILLEGALLY 3

immigration officers to go upon private property anywhere within the
United States for the purpose of apprehending aliens who are illegally
here. This section relates instead to the authority of border patrol
officers to enter upon private lands in border areas in order that they
may patrol for the purpose of preventing the illegal entry of aliens
into the United States.

This section would extend the authorities conferred upon immigra¬
tion officers by'the act of February 27, 1925, as amended by the act of
August 7, 1946 (8 U. S. C. 110), which act states generally the condi¬
tions under which activities may be performed without warrant. In
addition to existing authorities, “within a reasonable distance from
any external boundary,” to board and search conveyances, this section
would authorize immigration officers, without warrants, to enter
upon private lands, but not dwellings, within 25 miles from the border,
while patrolling the border in search of aliens. This would by positive
legislative enactment authorize specifically that which must always
have been of necessity implied from the time the border patrol was
first created.

Notwithstanding that the borders of the United States, for the
purpose of preventing the smuggling and illegal entry of aliens, have
been patrolled continuously since 1903, and that Congress specifi¬
cally authorized establishment of the border patrol in the Bureau of
Immigration in 1924, and annually since that time has appropriated
funds for borcler-patrol purposes, the statutes are silent with regard
to the authority of patrol officers to enter upon private lands adjacent
to the border so as to prevent the smuggling and illegal entry of
aliens into the United States. In recent months the activities of the
border patrol have in certain areas been seriously impaired by the re¬
fusal of some property owners along the border to allow patrol officers
access to extensive border areas in order to prevent such illegal
entries. This action by property owners is creating an increasingly
serious situation, one which endangers the national security. It
affects the sovereign right of the United States to protect its own
boundaries against the entry of aliens, including those of the most
dangerous classes.

The language of section 2 would adequately authorize immigration
officers to continue their normal patrol activities, concerning which
Congress has been well informed during the past 48 years, and which
authority it unquestionably meant these officers to exercise.

Upon consideration of all the facts concerning this legislation, the
committee is of the opinion that- S. 1851 should be enacted and it-
accordingly recommends that the bill do pass.

Changes in Existing Law

In compliance with clause 2a of rule XIII of the House of Repre¬
sentatives, changes in existing law made by the bill, are shown in
parallel columns (existing law set out in the first column and the law
as it is proposed to be amended shown in the second column):

ALIENS ENTERING OR REMAINING IN UNITED STATES ILLEGALLY

Existing Law

BRINGING IN OR HARBORING OR CON¬
CEALING CERTAIN ALIENS; PENALTY

Sec. 8. That any person, including
the master, agent, owner, or consignee
of any vessel, who shall bring into or
land in the United States, by vessel or
otherwise, or shall attempt, by himself
or through another, to bring into or
land in the United States, by vessel or
otherwise, or shall conceal or harbor, or
attempt to conceal or harbor, or assist
or abet another to conceal or harbor in
any place, including any building, ves¬
sel, railway car, conveyance, or vehicle,
any alien not duly admitted by an im¬
migrant inspector or not lawfully en¬
titled to enter or to reside within the
United States under the terms of this
Act, shall be deemed guilty of a mis¬
demeanor, and upon conviction thereof
shall be punished by a fine not exceed¬
ing $2,000 and by imprisonment for a
term not exceeding five years, for each
and every alien so landed or brought in
or attempted to be landed or brought in.

Proposed Law

That section 8 of the Immigration
Act of 1917 (39 Stat. 880; 8 U. S. C.
144), is hereby amended to read:

“Sec. 8. (a) Any person, including
the owner, operator, pilot, master,
commanding officer, agent or consignee
of anj 7 means of transportation who—
“(1) brings into or lands in the
United States, by any means of
transportation or otherwise, or at¬
tempts, by himself or through
another, to bring into or land in
the United States, by any means
of transportation or otherwise;

“(2) knowing that he is in the
United States in violation of law,
and knowing or having reasonable
grounds to believe that his last
entry into the United States oc¬
curred less than three years prior
thereto, transports, or moves, or
attempts to transport or move,
within the United States by means
of transportation or otherwise, in
furtherance of such violation of law;

“(3) wilfully or knowingly con¬
ceals, harbors, or shields from de¬
tection, or attempts to conceal,
harbor, or shield from detection, in
any place, including any building
or any means of transportation; or
“(4) willfully or knowingly en¬
courages or induces, or attempts to
encourage or induce, either directly
or indirectly, the entry into the
United States of any alien, in¬
cluding an alien seaman,not duly
admitted by an immigration officer
or not lawfully entitled to enter or
reside within the United States
under the terms of this Act or any
other law relating to the immigra¬
tion or expulsion of aliens, shall
be guilty of a felony, and upon con¬
viction thereof shall be punished
by a fine not exceeding $2,000 or
by imprisonment for a term not
exceeding five years, or both, for
each alien in respect to whom any
violation of this subsection occurs:
Provided , however , That for the
purposes of this section, employ¬
ment (including the usual and
normal practices incident to em¬
ployment) shall not be deemed to
constitute harboring.

(b) No officer or person shall have
authority to make any arrest for a
violation of any provision of this section
except officers and employees of the
United States Immigration and Natur¬
alization Service designated by the
Attorney General, either individually
or as a member of a class, and all other
officers of the United States whose duty
it is to enforce criminal laws.

ALIENS ENTERING OR REMAINING IN UNITED STATES ILLEGALLY 5

Existing! Law

)

(ACT APPROVED AUGUST 7, 1946; (60

STAT. 865; 8 U. S. C. 110)) (AMENDING

THE ACT OF FEBRUARY 27, 1925) .

Proposed Law

“(c) When the Attorney General or
any district director or any assistant
district director of the Immigration and
Naturalization Service has information
indicating a reasonable probability that
in any desginated lands or other prop¬
erty aliens are illegally within the
United States, he may issue his warrant
authorizing the immigration officer
named therein to go upon or within such
designated lands or other property other
than a dwelling in which the warrant
states there may be aliens illegally
within the United States, for the pur¬
pose of interrogating such aliens concern¬
ing their right to enter or to be or
remain in the United States. Such
warrant shall state therein the time of
day or night for its use and the period
of its validity which in no case shall be
for more than thirty days.”

Sec 2. The last proviso to the para¬
graph headed “Bureau of Immigration”
in title IV of the Act of February 27,
1925 (43 Stat. 1049; 8 U. S. C. 110), as
amended by the Act of August 7, 1946
(60 Stat. 865), is hereby further
amended so that clause numbered (2)
shall read:

82d CONGEESS
2d Session

Union Calendar No. 428

S. 1851

[Report No. 1377]

IN THE HOUSE OE REPRESENTATIVES

February 6,1952

Eeferred to the Committee on the Judiciary
February 19,1952

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union

and ordered to be printed

AN ACT

To assist in preventing aliens from entering or remaining in the

United States illegally.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-

2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,,

3 That section 8 of the Immigration Act of 1917 (39 Stat.

4 880; 8 U. S. 0. 144), is hereby amended to read:

5 “Sec. 8. (a) Any person, including the owner, operator,

6 pilot, master, commanding officer, agent, or consignee of any

7 means of transportation who—

8 “ (1) brings into or lands in the United States, hv

9 any means of transportation or otherwise, or attempts,
by himself or through another, to bring into or land in

the United States, by any means of transportation or
otherwise;

“ (2) knowing that he is in the United States in vio¬
lation of law, and knowing or having reasonable grounds
to believe that his last entry into the United States oc¬
curred less than three years prior thereto, transports, or
moves, or attempts to transport or move, within the
United States by means of transportation or otherwise,
in furtherance of such violation of law;

“ (4) willfully or knowingly encourages or induces,
or attempts to encourage or induce, either directly or
indirectly the entry into the United States of any alien,
including an alien seaman, not duly admitted by an
immigration officer or not lawfully entitled to enter or
reside within the United States under the terms of this
Act or any other law relating to the immigration or
expulsion of aliens, shall be guilty of a felony, and upon
conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine not exceed¬
ing $2,000 or by imprisonment for a term not exceeding
five years, or both, for each alien in respect to whom
any violation of this subsection occurs: Provided, liow-

ever, That for the purposes of this section, employment
(including the usual and normal practices incident to
employment) shall not be deemed to constitute
harboring.

“ (b) No officer or person shall have authority to make
any arrest for a violation of any provision of this section
except officers and employees of the United States Immi¬
gration and Naturalization Service designated by the At¬
torney General, either individually or as a member of a class,
and all other officers of the United States whose duty it is
to enforce criminal laws.

“ (c) When the Attorney General or any district director
or any assistant district director of the Immigration and
Naturalization Service has information indicating a reason¬
able probability that in any designated lands or other prop¬
erty aliens are illegally within the United States, he may
issue his warrant authorizing the immigration officer named
therein to go upon or within such designated lands or other
property other than a dwelling in which the warrant states
there may be aliens illegally within the United States, for the
purpose of interrogating such aliens concerning their right to
enter or to be or remain in the United States. Such warrant
shall state therein the time of day or night for its use and the
period of its validity which in no case shall be for more than
thirty days.”

Sec. 2. The last proviso to the paragraph headed
“Bureau of Immigration” in title IV of the Act of February
27, 1925 (43 Stat. 1049; 8 U. S. C. 110), as amended by
the Act of August 7, 1946 (60 Stat. 865), is hereby further
amended so that clause numbered (2) shall read:

“ (2) within a reasonable distance from any external
boundary of the United States, to board and search for
aliens any vessel within the territorial waters of the
United States and any railway car, aircraft, convey¬
ance, or vehicle, and within a distance of twenty-five
miles from any such external boundary to have access to
private lands, hut not dwellings, for the purpose of
patrolling the border to prevent the illegal entry of aliens
into the United States, and”.

Passed the Senate February 5 (legislative day, January
10), 1952.

Attest: LESLIE L. BIFFLE,

Secretary.

e 5

<T> g

U1 f?

rt- rt-

P CD

rt- Qj

_ rt*

O O

rt-

d o ^

b 2 »

» £
3 CD
Oj CD

2 Hi

S' H-

8 S'

O CB

O' t*
CD CD

« w

2. o

3 d
H- CQ
CD CD

* o
P

►

rt*

P -

C-l

•3 P
CD in

3 2.

g. £

!■ =

JQ *3

K CD

S' §

CD r
(—i s'
hr 1 jq

CD fs
Qj CD

H- ^
2* r**^

I 1

in g
£ CD

cT S
CTQ g

P, H

s’

• CTQ

I-S

(i)

•o

►<

rt*

to
to ®
O 0
wO

H 2
IB S
DO 0

5 £>

a B

a oo s
cn

S’

O-

»»

tS5

OF INTEREST TO THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

OFFICE OF BUDGET AND FINANCE

Issued Feb. 20, 1§52

(For Department

Staff Only)

0 2nd-2nd,

No/24

CONTENTS

Auditing..

Foreign affairs, aid..

"... 11

Prices, support;..

.30

Budget.

Forests and forestry..

Roads.

.27

Committees.

.14,21,

24,31

Rubb cr.

.32

Daylight saving

time..-9.23

Housing loans.

15.34

Territories and

Electrification.

Labor, farm.

■possessions... .

Emergency mowers

Military training...,.

Trade, foreign....

.29

Exhibit ion.

Minerals.. \ .

IS, 21

Transportation....

Expenditures.. ..

nominations.

. . . .8

Veterans’ benefits

... 15,34

’Flood control...

.-19

Organisation, execut ive-7,35

Water utilisation.

Foreign affairs.

.17

Personnel.

...25

..'.3,13,22,33

’rices, control.5

HIGHLIGHTS? Senate debated Alaska statehood bill. Both Houses received President 1 s

to assist in nr event inf* entry o:
bill reported.

wetbacks. House committee ordered water-research

ALASKA. STATEHOOD* Continued debate on S. 50. to grant statehood to Alaska (pjer*
v 1135-So). A

2. EMERGfS^ICY POWERS* Both Houses received the President* s message transmitting a
nronos eBsJ’Emergency Powers Continuation Act" to’continue various authorities
which, unu&s existing law," 1 would evoire with the end of the state of war with
Japan; to JucHci'hiy Committee (H. Doc. 36S)(pp a 1150, 1187 ),*' Two of these
items provide Vagrans 1 preference on farm-tenant loans and farm-housing' loans*

WATER COMPACT * The Inferior and Insular Affairs Committee reported with amend¬
ments^, 1798, granting consent of Congress p€ a compact entered into by;
Okla*', Tex., and II* Mex. relating to Canadian .Kiver waters (S 0 Rent* Il 92 )(p*
1128 )*

4# ETCEND ITURES« Received from the Jo Committee on Reduction of ITonessential
Federal Expenditures a report o.n Fedeml. grants-in-a id to States; to Appropria¬
tions Committee (S, .Doc* lOl) (uV ll 28 )«

5* PRICE CONTROL* Sens. Bridget and Ferguson critibi^ed OPS for hiring an informa¬
tion man to.publicize fed* services of the agency, et<c 0 (pp. 1129-30),

o, BUDGET. . Sen 0 Byrd inserted his mrovosed substitute for the. President * s 1953

Budget* His aLHTrnate would reduce ’’Agriculture and agricul
from $1*5 bUdion to $1,2 billion, (pp. 1131-4.)

iural resources 1

7* REORGANIZATION* Sen. Smith, IT* J. f inserted Herbert Hoover’s speech before the
2nd >eenference of the Citizens Co unit tee for the Hoover Report, together,, with a
Jkground statement (pp, 1134-5) •

POM I FAT 10 US, The Banking and Currency Committee reported favorably the nominatib-n.

- 2 -

)f Harry A. McDonald to "be RFC.Administrator (p. ll64)„

9 . DAYMGHD-SAVTN& TIME. The D. C, Committee ordered reported, hut did not actually
repeatv S. 2667 j to authorize daylight-saving time in D. Co (p. D110).

10. MELITABST .TRAINING. Sen* Larger inserted a telegram from Math Dahl, Commissioner

of Agriculture and Labor for IT. Dak*, opposirg military training (p. 1129 ).

■ \ ' ■

11 . FOREIGN AID. Sen* Hickenlooper inserted a Collier's magazine editorial opposing

further aid >to Europe until it does more to protect itself (pp* 1130 - 1 ).

HOUSE

12. FARM LABOR. The Judiciary Committee reported without amendment S. 1851, to as¬

sist in preventing aliens from entering or remaining in the U.- S. illegally
(H*. Sept". 1377 ) (p. 1188). ...

- ——————

13 . WATER UTILIZATION. The Interior and Insular Affairs Committee ordered -reported

H. R. 3735» t.o provide, fo'p research in methods for the. economical production
of water suitable for agricultural, industrial, and o.thcr uses, from sea or
other saline waters (p. Dll30$ and E. R. 53'S8, amended, authorizing construction
and maintenance of certain fa v s.ilites to provide waiter for irrigation and domes¬
tic use from the Santa Margariua River, Calif, (p. D113)•

The Interior and Insular Affairs Committee Reported with amendment H. R.
2470, granting the consent of Congress to a compact among Idaho, Mont., Nev*,
Oreg., Utah, Wash., and W 70 . for us^ of the waters of the Columbia River and
its tributaries (H. Rept. 138.6) (p. 1188''

l4. FORESTS. The Judiciary Committee ordcrepk. reported H. R. 5790, amended, to pro¬
hibit the unauthorized \xse of the name o\cha„racter "Snokey Bear (p. DII 3 }.

15* VETERANS’ HOUSING. Passed, 34l—0, without amendment H. R. 5S93» to nake addi¬
tional funds available to the Vetelans' Administration for direct home and
farmhouse loans to eligible veterans, under tittle III of the Servicemen’s Re¬
adjustment Act of 1944, as amended (pp. II 65 — 6 )

l 6 . EXHIBIT ION * The Foreign Affairs Committee reported with amendment H. J. Res.

108, providing for recognition and endorsement of thk International Trade Fair
and Inter-American Cultural and Trade Center in New Orleans, La (H. Rept. 1379)
(p. 1188). / • \

17 . FOREIGN AFFAIRS. The foreign Affairs Committee ord.ered adversely, reported H.

Res. 514, to direct the Secretary of State to transmit to the House information
relating to any agreements made by the President and the Prime Minister of
Great Britain daring their recent conversations (p; D112).

18. MINERALS. The Interior and Insular Affairs Committee ordered reported H. R.

4752, amending provisions of the mineral leasing laws for the second and third
lease years when a valuable deposit of oil or gas is not discovered on the land
during such period (p. D112).

• * •

19 . FLOOD CONTROL. The Interior aud Insular Affairs Committee ordered reported

E. R. 4801 and H. R. 5071».to enable the Hawaiian Legislature -to authorize the
city and county of Eonolulu and the county of Maui to issue certain bonds for
flood control purposes (pp. D112~3/»

1952

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE

1187

■ )ut to every vital con-
is. It would be hard
ber of this Congress
California who has
the growth and de-
golden State during
an has Carl Hayden.
western development
id times more effec-
her could do indivi-
Scially. No doubt
Hayden dreamed of
^ame things his dis¬
tinguished son, Carl, has unostenta¬
tiously, ploddingly, but persistently ac¬
complished. \

Carl Hayden has known Indians all
his life from living among them. He
knows why his father’s mariy business
trips through hostile Apache Oountry al¬
ways escaped harm. The attitude of
both father and son toward Indians was
not of the sob-sister, emotional kind,
but rather it was the down-to-ejh’th,
practical, genuine friendliness toward
these primitive neighbors, with a sincere
wish to help them. If I were an Ameri¬
can Indian I would rather have Carl
Hayden determine the Government
philosophy and action toward my peo¬
ple than any leader of opposing forces,
such as the “turn them loose” group or
the “perpetuate the primitive” school.
In my judgment, Carl Hayden’s efforts
toward our Indians have added up to
practical humanitarianism.

In the matter of highway building
Carl Hayden’s influence has been wide
and significant. He is very much alive
today and does not need a material
monument, but if and when he does he
has it in thousands of miles of good
paved highways through a dozen western
States where the highway systems have
been deeply, impressed with his touch.
He is largely responsible for the present
formula for the division of highway
funds so that the western, sparsely set¬
tled, public-land States get a wise pro¬
portion of revenue, in fact, a much
larger proportion relative to population
than do the older eastern States. He
has woi’ked very effectively to shape
public-highway policy. .

His father began irrigation in the
Valley of the Sun. Carl, as Congress^
man and now Senator, has multiplied
fiis father’s efforts more than a thou¬
sandfold. Senator Hayden sees oppor¬
tunity for creating new wealth through
Federal investment, through highways,
through flood control, through*reclama-
. tion, all of which will increasingly add to
the Nation’s wealth. Nonhas he done
this in any narrow provincial spirit. One
of the last statements,-foade to me by
the Honorable Richarji J. Welch was an
appraisal of how much he and his State
owed to Senator ^Carl Hayden. The
same can be saith’by many of you from
the extreme northwest concerning Carl
Hayden’s broad statesmanship. Other
States as wejf as Arizona may well take

■ noting 40 years of Carl
rvice in House and Senate
ican Congress,
ling this brief appraisal and
let me say that the great
en very fortunate in having
:ess of the United States, in
: Representatives and in the

Senate a man of the character and
caliber of Carl Hayden. Always in a
position of great influence, well fortified
by intimate knowledge and prompted by
his great zeal for making the Far West
all that his father hoped it to be, Carl
Hayden has made it fortunate that his
father left New England to become an
adopted son of the West. I have spdken
of Charles Trumbull Hayden as a man
with a vision. The vision could not be
materialized within his own lifetime, but
it has been largely materialized through
the influence of his son, the distinguished
senior Senator of Arizona, Carl Hayden,'
by his long years of service in this
Congress.

EXTENSION OF REMARKS

By unanimous consent, permission to
extended remarks in the Appendix of the
Record, or to revise and extend remarks,
was granted to:

Mr. Patten (at the request of Mr.
Yorty) and to include an editorial.

Mr. Yorty in four instances and to
include extraneous matter.

Mr. Sikes (at the request of Mr. Ben¬
oit of Florida) and to include ex¬
traneous matter.

Mjj. Dempsey.

Mr; JSvins in two instances.

Mr. Morano (at the request of Mr.
Patterson.)

Mr. Patterson in three instances.

Mr. Patterson and to include extrane¬
ous matter, which is estimated by the
Public Printer to cost $210.

Mr. Dolliver and to include a report
from the Iowa Development Commission.

Mr. Scudder (at the request of Mr.
Hunter) and to include extraneous
material.

< Mr. Wood of Idaho in two instances
and to include extraneous'matter.

Mr. Anderson of California and to in¬
clude a report on guayule rubber.

Mr. Case and to include an address.

Mr. Smith of Kansas in two instances
and to include extraneous matter^

Mr. Harrison of Wyoming in two., in¬
stances and to include extraneous mat¬
ter. \

Mr. Nelson in two instances and to
include extraneous matter.

Mr. Tollefson in two instances and to
include extraneous matter.

Mr. Van Zandt (at the request of Mr.
Canfield) and to include extraneous
matter.

Mr. Bakewell (at the request of Mr.
Canfield) and to include extraneous
matter.

Mr. Canfield and to include extrane¬
ous matter.

Mr. Javits in four instances and to in¬
clude extraneous matter.

Mr. Donohue in two instances and to
include extraneous matter.

Mr. Philbin in two instances.

Mr. Multer in four instances and to
include extraneous matter.

Mr. Coudert (at the request of Mr.
Kearney).

Mr. Shafer in three instances and to
include extraneous matter.

Mr. Reed of New York in five instances
and to include extraneous matter.

Mr. Price (at the request of Mr. Rog¬
ers of Colorado) and to include am
article.

Mr. Williams of Mississippi and to in¬
clude an editorial.

Mr. Elliott and to include an article.

Mr. Bender in five instances and to in¬
clude extraneous matter.

Mr. Durham and to include a speech
made by Mr. Austin last week.

Mr. Dorn to revise and extend the re¬
marks he made in the House this after¬
noon.

SENATE ENROLLED BILL SIGNED

The SPEAKER announced his signa¬
ture to an enrolled bill of the Senate of
the following title:

S. 759. An act to extend to screen vehicle
contractors benefits accorded star-route con¬
tractors with respect to the renewal of con¬
tracts and adjustment of contract pay.

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

By unanimous consent, leave of ab¬
sence was granted to:

Mr. Deane (at the request of Mr. Mc¬
Cormack), for the remainder of this
week, on account of illness.

Mr. Horan (at the request of Mr. Mack
of Washington), on account of death in
his family.

ADJOURNMENT

Mr. WICKERSHAM. Mr. Speaker, I
move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly
(at 2 o’clock and 18 minutes p. m.) the
House adjourned until tomorrow,
Wednesday, February 20, 1952, at 12
o’clock noon.

EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS, ETC.

Under clause 2 of rule XXIV, execu¬
tive communications were taken from
the Speaker’s table and referred as fol¬
lows:

1173. A letter from the Comptroller Gen¬
eral of the United States, transmitting a
report on the audit of Federal Housing Ad¬
ministration for the fiscal year ended June
30, 1951, pursuant to the Government Cor¬
poration Control Act (31 U. S. C. 841) (H.
Doc. No. 366); to the Committee on Expendi¬
tures in the Executive Departments, and or¬
dered to be printed.

1174. A letter from the Comptroller Gen¬
eral of the United States, transmitting the
audit report of Reconstruction Finance Cor¬
poration for the fiscal year ended June 30,
"1951, pursuant to the Government Corpora¬
tion Control Act (31 U. S. C. 841) (H. Doc.
No. 367); to the Committee on Expenditures
in the Executive Departments, and ordered
to be printed.

1175. A letter from the Acting Adminis¬
trator, Reconstruction Finance Corporation,
transmitting copies of the report on the
Government-owned tin smelter at Texas
City, Tex.; and the program for the pur¬
chase and sale of tin metal in the United
States, pursuant to Public Law 125, Eight¬
ieth Congress; to the Committee on Bank¬
ing and Currency.

1176. A letter from the American Academy
of Arts and Letters, transmitting the official
report of the American Academy of Arts
and Letters for the year 1951; to the Com¬
mittee on House Administration.

1177. A communication from the President
cf the United States, transmitting a draft of
a proposed joint resolution entitled, “Joint
resolution to continue in effect certain stat¬
utory provisions for the duration of the
national emergency proclaimed December
16, 1950, and 6 months thereafter, notwith¬
standing the termination of the existing
state of war (H. Doc. No. 368); to the Com¬
mittee on the Judiciary, and ordered to be
printed.

1188

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE

February 19

1178. A letter from the Attorney General,
transmitting a letter relative to the case of
Cruz Del Toro-Camposano, file No. A-
7392151,T CR 33838, and requesting that it
be withdrawn .from those before the Con¬
gress and returned to the jurisdiction of the
Department of Justice; to the Commitee on
the Judiciary.

1179. A letter from the Secretary, National
Park Trust Fund Board, National Park Serv¬
ice, Department of the Interior, transmitting
the report for the National Park Trust Fund
Board for the fiscal .year 1951, pursuant to
section 6 of an act approved July 10, 1935
(49 Stat. 477; 16 U. S. C. 19); to the Com¬
mittee on Interior and Insular Affairs.

1180. A letter from the Secretary of the
Interior, transmitting a report on the activi¬
ties of the Department of the Interior in
providing assistance to public school dis¬
tricts serving areas in which the construction
of projects or features of projects, by the
Bureau of Reclamation, cast an undue bur¬
den upon the facilities of such districts, pur¬
suant to section 2 of the act of June 29, 1948
(62 Stat. 1108; 43 U. S. C. 1946 ed„ Supp. n,
sec. 385b); to the Committee on Interior
and Insular Affairs.

1181. A letter from the Assistant Secretary
of Defense, transmitting a draft of a pro¬
posed bill entitled, “A bill to authorize the
transfer of hospitals and related facilities
between the Veterans’ Administration and
the Department of Defense, and for other
purposes”; to the Committee on Veterans’
Affairs.

REPORTS OF COMMITTEES ON PUBLIC
BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS

Under clause 2 of rule XIII, reports of
committees were delivered to the Clerk
for printing and reference to the proper
calendar as follows:

Mr. WALTER: Committee on the Judiciary.
S. 1851. An act to assist in preventing aliens
from entering or remaining in the United
States illegally; without amendment (Rept.
No. 1377). Referred to the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union.

Mr. BURLESON: Committee on Foreign
Affairs. H. R. 1511. A bill granting the con¬
sent of Congress to the Mid Valley Bridge Co.,
Hidalgo, Tex., its successors and assigns, to
construct, maintain, and operate a bridge
across the Rio Grande: without amendment
(Rept. No. 1378). Referred to the House
Calendar.

Mr. BURLESON: Committee on Foreign Af¬
fairs. House Joint Resolution 108. Joint
resolution providing for recognition and en¬
dorsement of the International Trade Fair
and Inter-American Cultural and Trade.Cen-
ter in New Orelans, La.; with amendment
(Rept. No. 1379). Referred to the Commit¬
tee of the Whole House on the State of the
Union.

Mr. ENGLE: Committee on Interior and
Insular Affairs. H. R. 2470. A bill granting
the consent of Congress to the States of
Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Utah,
Washington, and Wyoming to negotiate and
enter into a compact fo/ the disposition, al¬
location, diversion, and apportionment of the
waters of the Columbia River and its tribu¬
taries, and for other purposes; with amend¬
ment (Rept. No. 1380). Referred to the
Committee of the Whole House on the State
of the Union.

PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS

Under clause 3 of rule XXII, public
bills and resolutions were introduced and
severally referred as follows:

By Mr. ANFUSO:

H. R. 6690. A bill to facilitate civil-service
.'appointment of persons who lost opportunity

therefor because of service in the Armed
Forces after June 30, 1950, and to provide
certain benefits upon appointment; to the
Committee on Post Office and Civil Service.

By Mr. BEALL (by request):

H. R. 6691. A bill to prohibit the sale in
the District of Columbia of chicks, ducklings,
and young rabbits during the 3-week period
before and after Easter; to the Committee on
the District of Columbia.

By Mr. BERRY:

H. R. 6692. A bill to amend section 303
of the Tariff Act of 1930; to the Committee on
Ways and Means.

By Mr. BRYSON:

H. R. 6693. A bill to amend section 17 of
the Contract Settlement Act of 1944 so as to
authorize the payment of fair compensation
to persons informally contracting to deliver
certain strategic or critical minerals or metals
in cases of failure to recover reasonable costs;
to the Committee on the Judiciary.

H. R. 6694. A bill to amend section 6 of
the Contract Settlement Act of 1944 so as to
provide for fair compensation amendments
to World War II formal contracts for delivery
of certain strategic or critical minerals or
metals; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. CELLER:

H. R. 6695. A bill to amend title 18, United
States Code, entitled, “Crimes and Criminal
Procedure,” with respect to State jurisdic¬
tion "over offenses committed by or against
Indians in the Indian country, and to con¬
fer on the State of Oregon civil jurisdiction
over Indians in the State; to the .Committee
on the Judiciary.

Ey Mr. COTTON:

H. R. 6696. A bill for the relief of the State
of New Hampshire and the town of New Bos¬
ton, N. H.; to the Committee on the Judi¬
ciary.

By Mr. DAVIS of Tennessee:

H. R. 6697. A bill to amend the laws relat¬
ing to the construction of Federal-aid high¬
ways to provide for equality of treatment of
railroads and other public utilities with re¬
spect to the cdst of relocation of utility fa¬
cilities necessitated by the construction of
such highways; to the Committee on Public
Works.

By Mr. D’EWART:

H. R; 6693. A bill to provide adequate
school facilities at the Fort Peck project,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Interior and Insular Affairs.

By MT. DINGELL:

H. R. 6699. A bill to amend paragraph 1774,
section 201, title H, of the Tariff Act of 1930;
to the Committee on Ways and Means.

By Mr. GRANGER:

H. R. 6700. A bill to authorize the Secre¬
tary of the Interior to permit the prospect¬
ing, development, mining, removal, and uti¬
lization of the mineral resources of national-
forest lands or lands administered for na¬
tional-forest purposes or in connection with
national-forest programs not subject to the
operation of the general mining laws or the
Mineral Leasing Act, as amended, the Min¬
eral Leasing Act for Acquired Lands, or for
the development of which no other statu¬
tory authority exists; to the Committee on
Interior and Insular Affairs.

. By Mr. KLEIN:

H. R. 6701. A bill to authorize the Board
of Commissioners of the District of Colum¬
bia to establish daylight saving time in the
District; to the Committee on the District of
Columbia.

By Mr. PATMAN:

H. R. 6702. A bill to amend the Federal
Credit Union Act; to the Committee on
Banking and Currency.

By Mr. PATTEN:

H. R. 6703. A bill to terminate Federal dis¬
crimination against the Indians of Arizona;

ms uia

researc]

to the Committee on Interior and Insular
Affairs.

By Mr. PHILLIPS:

H. R. 6704. A bill to provide for research
Into and demonstration of practical" means
for the economical production, froin sea or
other saline waters, of water suitable for ag¬
ricultural, industrial, municipal, and other
beneficial consumptive uses, and for other
purposes; to the Committee.on Interior and
Insular Affairs.

By Mr. POULSON/’

H. R. 6705. A bill to authorize the Attor¬
ney General to conduct preference primaries
for nomination of candidates for President
and Vice President; to the Committee on
House Administration.

By Mr. WITHROW:

H. R. 6706. A bill to amend the Seniority
Act for Rural Mail Carriers to provide a
method for the promotion of substitute rural
carriers to the position of regular rural car¬
rier; to* the Committee on Post Office and
Civil Service.

By Mr. YORTY:

H. R. 6707. A bill to authorize the Attor¬
ney General to conduct preference primaries
for nomination of candidates for President
and Vice President; to the Committee on
House Administration.

By Mr. BRYSON:

H. J. Res. 382. Joint resolution to provide
for setting aside an appropriate day as a
national day of prayer; to the Committee on
the Judiciary.

By Mr. KERSTEN of Wisconsin:

H. J. Res. 383. Joint resolution to safeguard
the economic stability of the United States
by imposing limitations on grants of new
obligational authority for, and on expendi¬
tures during, the fiscal year 1953; to the
Committee on Expenditures in the Executive
Departments.

By Mr. SCUDDER:

H. J. Res. 384. Joint resolution to provide
for the conveyance of the Muir Wood toll
road by Marin County, State of California,
to the United States; to the Committee on
Interior and Insular Affairs.

By Mr. SIMPSON of Illinois.

H. J. Res. 385. Joint resolution proposing
an amendment to the Constitution of the
United States relating to nominations of
candidates for President and Vice President;
to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. RANKIN:

H. Con. Res. 200. Concurrent resolution to
provide for the printing of a manual of vet¬
erans’ rights and benefits; to the Committee
on House Administration.

MEMORIALS

Undfr clause 3 of rule XXII, me¬
morials were presented and referred as
follows:

By Mr. ASPINALL: Memorial of Colorado
State Senate, that the Congress of the United
States enact legislation establishing a single
purchasing and surplus property disposal
department for the armed services and to
provide that supervisory personnel employed
by the Federal Government be not awarded
extra compensation or additional rating
principally by the reason of a large number
of employees under supervision; to the Com¬
mittee on Armed Services.

PRIVATE BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS

Under clause 1 of rule XXII, private
bills and resolutions were introduced and
severally referred as follows:

By Mr. ADDONIZIO:

H. R. 6708. A bill for the relief of Ching
Zoi Dong; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

■

82d Congress ) HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES j Report
2d Session } ( No. 1402

CONSIDERATION OF S. 1851

Februarv 21, 1952.—Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

Mr. Lyle, from the Committee on Rules, submitted the following

REPORT

[To accompany H. Res. 529]

The Committee on Rules-, having had under consideration House
Resolution 529, reports the same to the House with the recommenda¬
tion that the resolution do pass.

)

'n.4 / ! . ■ • • ••

82d CONGRESS
2d Session

House Calendar No. 125

H. RES. 529

[Report No. 1402]

IN THE HOUSE OE REPRESENTATIVES

February 21,1952

Mr. Lyle, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following resolution;
which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

RESOLUTION

1 Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this

2 resolution it shah be in order to move that the House re-

3 solve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the

4 State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (S. 1851)

5 to assist in preventing aliens from entering or remaining

6 in the United States illegally. That after general debate,

7 which shall be confined to the hill and continued not to ex-

8 ceed two hours, to be equally divided and controlled by

9 the chairman and ranking minority member of the Com-

10 mittee on the Judiciary, the bill shall he read for amendment

11 under the five-minute rule. At the conclusion of the con-

12 sideration of the hill for amendment, the Committee shall

1 rise and report the hill to the House with such amendments

2 as may have been adopted and the previous question shall

3 be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto

4 to final passage without intervening motion except one

5 motion to recommit.

2. G
P P
CD CD

O- P

cT 5* s: §
p aQ ~ g-'
£ 2 o 5'

^ * p w

M to ..

£ 2. o

3 ^
(TQ

. O
CD O
C £
H fD K

c*-

ri- ^
CD

Q aq

CD ^
CD 02 O
^ H, ^

W o
is" ^

S' cd 00

S » £2

i_i. CD ^

T“ 7 p

■a

•"S

00
to
to®
® O
co O

H 2
02 S
tn O

s w

2 a

4*.

C/3

<£>

House Calendar No. 125

OF INTEREST TO THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

_J Issued Feb. 2 $, 1952

OFFICE OF BUDGET AND

FINANCE

For

actions of Feb. 21,

1952

(For Department Staff Only)

CONTENTS

u2nd-2nd, No

. 26

Cotton.

Legislative program..

.. .10

Roads.

....9

Expenditures.

. 6

Military training....

.. 2,5

Social security.

. . .11

Earn product ion.

Minerals...

....7

Soil conservation....

. . .20

Foreign affairs,....

Organization, executive...

Territories and

Grain.

.17

• 3.23

possessions.

Labor, farm..

Personnel.

T r ansp 0 r t a t i 0 n.

...14

Lands, reclamation..

.13

Prices, control.

. . .IS

Veterans* benefits...

...15

Livestock and meat,.

Recreation..

. . .12

Water utilization....

Research..

HIGHLIGHTS: Senate

debated

Alaska statehood bill.

Senate committee reported

nil i-

trry training bill. Sen. Bridges urged more reorganization pursuant to Hoover Coer-
■mission proposals. House Rules Committee cleared wetback-entry and military train¬
ing tills. Sen. Lehman introduced and discussed, and several Representatives and
Senators introduced, hills to amend Social Security Act. • nd extend benefits to farm¬
ers and additional farm workers.

OIJ

NATE

.LA5KA STATEHOOD, Continued debate on S. 50, to grant statehood
landing at recess was a motion by Sen. S mat hers to recommit the
Inthsuor and Insular -Affairs Committee with instructions for a :

(pp. I863-U, 1266-75, 1279-81).

HOUSE

further study.

i.ALIT-iiY TRAU^NG, The firmed Services Committee reported
to provide f orSdninistration and discipline of the -Aa^d’hal
Corps (S. Rept. (p.' 1252).

amendment S. 2441,
; eerily Training

3. REORGAiJI Z. .T I ON • Sen, Bribes inserted a letter, -from Herbert Hoover reporting on
the progress that has beenSacle toward adoption of the Hoover Commission recom¬
mendations and the savings wtmsh have bepn estimated, Sen. Bridges criticized
a statement which Budget Direct oK^awfcdn is reported as having made to the
effect that the primary purpose ofySfe^eHoover Commission'was to bring efficiency
rather than monetary savings. Lrff, 128^5.)

li. FARM LIBOR. The Rules Committee reported a resolution for consideration of

S. 1851, to assist in preventing aliens from entering or remaining in the U. S,
illegally (p. 1290).

5. HILITARTMBffiJFIHGL The Rules Committee reported a resolution i'oksJUie considera¬
tion^! ,H. R. 59^4, to provide for the administration and discipline of the
I^Hunal Seeurity Training Corps, (p, 129Q) •

EXPENDITURES. Rep. Hoffman, Mich., stated that the Federal Government and

public 1 debt' cannot 'conti'nae to,fe^re-nd,,a.nd.$ontinaed contributions to United,
Nations and other int'er^tdona^Pbr^nisatioAs and causes will drain the r erf
'sources of the'country. \Ke inserted a.Collier*s magazine editorial opposing
the continued expansion of "thefederal Government. (PP. 12S7 — &)

7 . MIKRAEE, The Interior and Insular Affairs Committee reported vrithout amend¬
ment H. 'R, 4752, to amend the mineral leasing laws in order.,to eliminate the
waiver of rentals for oil and gas leases (H. Rept. l4ll) (p.,1292)-

IRRIGATION. The Interior and Ins-alar Affairs Committee reported with amendment
•Hi R. 536 S, tX authorize the. Secretary of the Interior to construct, operate,
and maintain ©Wain facilities to provide water for irrigation and domestic
use from the Santa Margarita River, Calif., and the joint utilization of a dam
and reservoir and' other water work facilities hy the Department of Interior and
the Navy Department, (H. Rept. l4l2') (p. 1292). ■

9 . ROADS. Agreed without amendment to H*. J. Res. 327, changing the name of the
Blue Ridge Parkway to the "Robert L. Doughton Parkva ^ 1 (pp. 1222-9)*

10. LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM. Majority Leader McCormack announced that S. 18 51, the
"wetback" bill is to be considered Hon., Feb. 2% and that consideration of
H. R. 5904, idle military tracing bill, is to Vegin Tues., Feb. 26 (p. 1229)

S INTRODUCED

11 . SOCIAL SECURITY* S. 2705, by Sen. £'hhmaX(for himself and Sens. Murray, Magm-
son, and Humphrey); H. R. 6750, by Rap. Dingell, Mich.} h. R. 6751* ly ^ep*
Roosevelt, if. Y.; H. R. 6752 , by Ren. Uackson, Wash.; and H. R. 6753 , by Rep.
Mitchell, Wash.} to extend and improve Vie old-age and survivors insurance,
system; and to provide permanent’a£d toa\ disability insurance and rehabilita¬
tion benefits; to Ways and Means :Committee- and S. Finance Committee (pp*

1253, 1292-3). Sen. Lehman inserted a statement explaining the provisions and
purposes of the bill (pp. 125^*6l). The bills would extend OA&SI coverage to ^
an estimated 3 , 500,000 farm operators with net earnings tit at least $400, am 3
an estimated additional 2 ,$ 0,000 farm workers.-.

/ X

12 . RECREATION* S. 2715, by Son. Murray, to provide assistance by the U. S. in
the development of community recreation programs; td Labor and Public Welfa
Committee tp» 1253)*

13. RECLAMATION. S. 2709, by Sen. O t Mahoney (for himself and Sen. Hunt), to amend

subsections (a) and (b) of Section 9 the Reclamation Project Acu of 19i>9* t
Interior and Insular Affairs Committee (p. 1253)*

/ %

14. TRANSPORTATION. S. 2712, by Sen. Magnuson, to amend the Interstate Commerce

Act, as amended, to subject freight forwarders to the requirement for obtain¬
ing certificates of public convenience and necessity, and to make applicable
to freight forwarders the uniform provisions of the law concerning combina- j
tions and consolidations of carriers; to Interstate and Foreign Commerce Com¬
mittee (p. 1253)* \

S. 2713, by Sen. Magmson, to amend the Interstate Commerce Act, as amend

to provide more definite standards for determining who is entitled to exempt!
from part IV of said act as an association of shippers or a shippers' agent*
Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee (p. 1253)*

ndel
tioj
; t(

15 . VETERANS T BENEFITS. K. R. 6756 and H. R. 6757 , by Rep. Wickerriiao, Ckla., to

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE

1952

Mr. CHATHAM. I yield to the gen¬
tleman from Georgia.

Mr COX. I know of no way of judg¬
ing a hjan except by the life he has
lived, by the work he has done, and by
what his colleagues have to say about
him. Judging the distinguished gentle¬
man from North Carolina by this rule,
I find him to be. pure gold. He has been
worth his weight in rubies to the country
that he has so long served. He is an
ornament to this Congress and a fa¬
vorite son of the Republic.

Mr. PRIEST. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?

Mr. CHATHAM. I yield to the gen¬
tleman from Tennessee.

Mr. PRIEST. I appreciate very much
what the gentleman has brought to the
attention of the House. The parkway
under consideration extends from the
great State of North Carolina into the
equally great State of Tennessee. I
know all of us in that State are very
happy to join in this tribute to that
very great American, Mr. Bob Dough-
ton.

Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?

Mr. CHATHAM. I yield to the gentle¬
man from Mississippi.

Mr. RANKIN. I wish to approve what
has been said about my distinguished
friend, Bob Doughton. There is not
a finer American under this flag. I wish
he were President of the United States.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from North
Carolina?

There was no objection.

Mr. DOUGHTON. Mr. Speaker, I
move to strike out the last word.

Mr. Speaker, no one could appreciate
more, as far as my capacity for appre¬
ciation extends, the confidence, consid¬
eration, and respect of my colleagues.

I had requested that the resolution for
which consideration unanimous consent
has just been granted not be brought up
today, for different reasons. It is true I
had something to do, perhaps I can mod¬
estly say more to do than any other one
person, as far as I know, with the estab¬
lishment of the Blue Ridge Parkway,
that great boulevard which traverses the
Blue Ridge Mountains from the Shenan¬
doah National Park in Virginia to the
Great Smoky Mountains National Park
in North Carolina and Tennessee.

I feel that the establishment of that
great parkway has been more/than fully
vindicated. It is now the most beauti¬
ful, scenic motor route Jn the world.
There is no question abmit that. While
there are several gaps tnat are still not
closed, more than 2,00ff000 tourists trav¬
eled over that parkjray last year. It is
within reach of half of the population of
the United States. It has an average
elevation of something like 5,000 feet.
Some points along the road rise to 6,000
feet or morp; Whatever service I have
rendered in the establishment of this
great parkway has been in the interests
of our .country, and in the interest of
those.y^ngaged in motor travel looking
for JJie most beautiful and scenic part of
thy United States, and for a place where
they can spend their vacation in comfort
-and enjoy the mountain scenery as well

as the salubrious mountain climate.
They have named a beautiful park lo¬
cated on the parkway after me, a park
near my home, on land that my father
and myself once owned. In my early
days I worked as a farm hand on that
land. The park is a popular one. They
have facilities there to take care of peo¬
ple who visit there to visit the park and
to travel along the parkway. But so far
as naming the Blue Ridge Parkway by
any other name, I want to say that the
name Blue Ridge Parkway is an appro¬
priate name because this great parkway
traverses 500 miles through the Blue
Ridge Mountains, and therefore is a very
appropriate name. The Park Service
has selected that name, and from what I
have heard I am sure they would not like
to have the name changed. It would be
an interference with their plans and pro¬
grams with reference to the parkway.
Our State has spent millions of dollars
in securing rights-of-way and to defray
other expenses necessary in the estab¬
lishment of this great boulevard, so
I feel that this resolution is a mistake,
as much as I appreciate the friendship
and the confidence and affection and
regard shown by my young, able, and
distinguished friend [Mr. Chatham].
I would appreciate it very much if my
friend would withdraw the resolution
changing the name to the Robert L.
Doughton Parkway.

Mr. CHATHAM. Mr. Speaker, I do
not think that the National Park Service
is going to tell the Congress of the United
States what name we are going to give to
a parkway which goes through Mr.
Doughton’s district. The resolution
stands, sir, to name the parkway the
Robert L. Doughton Parkway.

The SPEAKER. And the gentleman
from North Carolina assures our col¬
league that the resolution carries no
appropriation?

Mr. CHATHAM. It carries no appro¬
priation, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. HAMILTON C. JONES. Mr.
Speaker, in my opinion it is very fitting
and proper that the name of this high¬
way be changed from the Blue Ridge
Parkway to the Robert L. Doughton
Parkway for the reason that it would be
naming this beautiful and important
southern mountain highway for one of
the leading citizens of our Nation who
has contributed more to the planning
and building of this useful, scenic park¬
way than any other citizen. Further¬
more, the naming of this highway the
Robert L. Doughton Parkway would meet
with the unanimous approval of the
mountain people of North Carolina for
whom he has rendered such valiant
service.

Congressman Robert L. Doughton
helped initiate the plans for this beauti¬
ful parkway and has stuck right by the
program and watched it develop to com¬
plete maturity and is more responsible
for the achievement than any man in
the Nation. Furthermore, it is very fit¬
ting that his splendid service to the Na¬
tion as a distinguished Congressman and
chairman of the important House Ways
and Means Committee for many years
should be recognized in this most appro¬
priate way by the passage of the compli-

1289

mentary and appropriate resolution
which has just been introduced and is
now being discussed.

I sincerely hope the House wi^F pass
this appropriate resolution and give due
recognition to one of the most capable,
unselfish and finest citizens of the
United States of America who is indeed
the very epitome of patriotic leadership,
good citizenship, and exemplary char¬
acter.

The SPEAKER. The question is on
the engrossment and third reading of
the joint resolution.

The joint resolution was ordered to be
engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.

The SPEAKER. The question is on
the passage of the joint resolution.

The joint resolution was passed.

A motion to reconsider was laid on the
table.

LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM FOR NEXT WEEK

(Mr. MARTIN of Massachusetts asked
and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute.)

Mr. MARTIN of Massachusetts. Mr.
Speaker, I take this time to inquire of
the majority leader as to the program
for next week.

Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Speaker, on
Monday the bill S. 1851, the so-called
Mexican labor wetback bill, general de¬
bate only.

After disposition of that bill on Tues¬
day, it is the intention to bring up the
universal military training bill, which
will continue in general debate for the
balance of the week, the discussion un¬
der the 5-minute rule beginning the fol¬
lowing week.

Mr. MARTIN of Massachusetts. Then,
we can take it for granted there will be
no reading of the universal military
training bill until a week from Monday?

Mr. McCORMACK. If the bill is
brought up next week it is the intention
that there will just be general debate
next week.

Mr. JENKINS. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?

Mr. MARTIN of Massachusetts. I
yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. JENKINS. The gentleman says
it will continue all week. That does not
mean Saturday, of course?

Mi’. McCORMACK. Of course not.
That part remaining of Wednesday, and
Thursday and Friday.

ADJOURNMENT OVER

Mi’. McCORMACK. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that when the House
adjourns tomorrow it adjourn to meet on
Monday next.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr.
Mansfield). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Massa¬
chusetts?

There was no objection.

CALENDAR WEDNESDAY

Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that business in order
on Calendar Wednesday of next week
may be dispensed with.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there
objection?

There was no objection.

1290 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE February 21

NATIONAL SECURITY TRAINING CORPS
ACT

Mr. COX, from the Committee on
Rules!, reported the following privileged
resolution (H. Res. 528, Rept. No. 1401),
which was referred to the House Calen¬
dar and ordered to be printed:

Resolved, That immediately upon the
adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order to move that the House resolve itself
into the Committee of the Whole House on
the State of the Union for the consideration
of the bill (H. R. 5904) to provide for the
administration and discipline of the National
Security Training Corps, and for other pur¬
poses. That after general debate, which
shall be confined to the bill and continued
not to exceed 12 hours, to be equally divided
and controlled by the chairman and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Armed
Services, the bill shall be read for amend¬
ment under the 5-minute rule. At the con¬
clusion of the consideration of the bill for
amendment, the Committee shall rise and
report the bill to the House with such amend¬
ments as may have been adopted and the
previous question shall be considered as or¬
dered on the bill and amendments thereto
to final passage without intervening motion
except one motion to recommit.

TO ASSIST IN PREVENTING ALIENS PROM

ENTERING OR REMAINING IN THE

UNITED STATES ILLEGALLY

Mr. LYLE, from the Committee on
Rules, reported the following privileged
resolution (H. Res. 529, Rept. No. 1402),
which was referred to the House Calen¬
dar and ordered to be printed:

Resolved, That immediately upon the
adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order to move that the House resolve itself
into the Committee of the Whole House on
the State of the Union for the consideration
of the bill (S. 1851) to assist in preventing
aliens from entering or remaining in the
United States illegally. That after general
debate, which shall be confined to the bill
and continued not to exceed 2 hours, to be
equally divided and controlled by the chair¬
man and ranking minority member of the
Committee on the Judiciary, the bill shall be
read for amendment under the 5-minute
rule. At the conclusion of the consideration
of the bill for amendment, the Committee
shall rise and report the bill to the House
with such amendments as may have been
adopted and the previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the bill and amend¬
ments thereto to final passage without inter¬
vening motion except one motion to re¬
commit. _ _

[Mr. RANKIN addressed the House.
His remarks will appear hereafter in the
Appendix.]

SPECIAL ORDER

The SPEAKER. Under the previous
order of the House, the gentleman from
Michigan [Mr. Crawford] is recognized
for 5 minutes.

PATRIOTISM OP THE SAMOANS

Mr. CRAWFORD. Mr. Speaker, while
thousands of dollars are being spent by
the Armed Forces to induce voluntary
enlistments, there are today in American
Samoa over 2,000 young and physically
able Polynesian Americans who have
publicly expressed their willingness to do
their part in serving the country they
have loved and respected for over 50
years. It is my understanding that they
have also submitted a petition to the
President for facilities to enable them to

join the armed services. A great num¬
ber of these boys have had military
training, some averaging 3 years in the
Marine Corps in World War II.

The Samoans are akin to the Ha-
waiians, both being of the Polynesian
race. Knowing the fighting ability of
the Hawaiians, it is not necessary for me
to go into the ability of the Samoans.
However, for the record, I may touch a
little on the military background of the
Samaons. Serving in the Armed Forces
is nothing new with the Samoans. Ever
since the highly respected Samoan mi¬
litia, the Fita Fita, was established under
the Navy in 1900, it became traditional
with the Samoans to serve in the Armed
Forces. Many are presently serving in
the Army, the Air Force, the Navy, and
the Marine Corps. Samoans participated
in World War I, fought and died in World
War n, and in the present fighting in
Korea some have already made the su¬
preme sacrifice for their country. One
of the most decorated soldiers of the
Fifth Regimental Combat Team, one of
the infantry units that gallantly de¬
fended the Pusan perimeter in the early
phases of the Communist onslaught, was
a Samoan rifle platoon sergeant. Before
he was listed as missing in action he had
already won 11 battle decorations for
gallantry.

As a member of the Committee on
Interior and Insular Affairs* it was my
privilege to visit with the Samoan people
recently where I personally witnessed the
loyalty of the Samoans to their country.
At that time these Samoans asked me
for the assistance of Congress to estab¬
lish recruitment facilities in American
Samoa. In response to the request of
the Samoans, I have introduced' H. R.
6318 to facilitate the voluntary enlist¬
ment of qualified American Samoans by
establishing' and maintaining of ade¬
quate recruitment facilities in American
Samoa.

At the beginning of the present conflict
in Korea the Samoans sensed the urgent
need for soldiers and marines, so much
so that some paid their own transporta¬
tion to the nearest recruiting station,
which is in Honolulu, over 2,000 miles
away. In one instance, when the Marine
Corps recruiter at Pearl Harbor asked
for the home address of three husky
brothers, he was a little surprised when
told they traveled all the way from
Samoa to enlist. It is not often that
three young fellows will spend all their
savings of $1,000 for transportation to
offer their services to the Armed Forces.
But this is indicative of the loyalty of
these people. Since the majority of the
young Samoans cannot afford to meet
the considerable cost of transportation,
the need for a recruiting station in
Samoa is evident.

As to any question of morale problem,
I have been informed by the director of
public health in Samoa, a retired colonel
in the United States Army Medical
Corps, that there will be a very small
percentage of rejections for physical and
neuropsychiatric defects among the
Samoan boys, and, in fact, the rate will
be considerably less than in the main¬
land United States. A great many
young Samoans of military age have

completed their junior high-school
training and some have completed high
school and there will be no problem of
literacy.

In establishing recruitment facilities
in American Samoa, our country will not
only benefit from this promising source
of manpower but it will also contribute
greatly to the economic and educational
welfare of the people of American
Samoa.

ABRAHAM LINCOLN SLEEPS, HE IS NOT
DEAD—FOR HIS FAITH WE PRAY

(Mr. ANGELL asked and was given
permission to extend his remarks at this
point in the Record.)

Mr. ANGELL. Mr. Speaker, in these
days of corruption, graft, and low moral
standards in our Federal Government,
it is refreshing to consider the rugged
and deep-rooted honesty and devotion
to high standards of integrity, morality,
and honesty in government of Abraham
Lincoln, whose birthday we are cele¬
brating. Lincoln said:

Let every American, every lover of liberty,
every -well-wisher to his posterity swear by
the blood of the Revolution never to violate,
in the least particular, the laws of the coun¬
try, and never to tolerate their violations by
others. Let every man remember that to
violate the law is to trample on the blood
of his father and to tear the charter of his
own and his children’s liberty. Let rev-
erance for the laws be breathed by every
American mother to the lisping babe that
prattles on her lap; let it be taught in the
schools, in seminaries, and in colleges; let
it be written in primers, spelling books, and
in almanacs; let it be preached from the
pulpit, proclaimed in legislative halls, and
enforced in courts of justice.

More people visit the Lincoln Monu¬
ment, the shrine of liberty and justice,
than any other of the many historical
places of hallowed memory here in the
Nation’s Capital. The spirit of Lincoln
seems to pervade the very atmosphere
in the Capital of the Nation he gave his
life to preserve. As the poet, Joseph
Auslander, said:

He sleeps, the valiant shepherd sleeps, who
led

The multitude of his bewildered sheep
From bondage into peace; he is not dead;

He has lain down a little while to sleep.
Ah, not for him the shouting and the glory,

The feast that follows triumph; in his
mouth

Only the bitter taste of blood, the story

Without an end, the sorrow North and
South.

The valiant shepherd of the flock is taken;

The Lord has plucked him from our midst
away;

Now when our hearts again are sorely shaken,

Beset on all sides, for his faith we pray.
He moves among us; we are not forsaken;

His love still sheds a light upon our way.

Mr. Speaker, on April 20, 1939, soon
after I became a Member of the Con¬
gress, I made some remarks in the House
with reference to Abraham Lincoln
which it seems appropriate for me to re¬
peat here.

Many years ago when our country was
young and bands of pioneers were trek¬
king across America, extending its fron¬
tiers and making homes in the wilder¬
ness, a large company camped one night
on the banks of a mountain stream. In
the morning they broke camp, forded

r.Nv.’UM

-3-

IIOUSE - February 25

l6. FARM LABOR. Completed general delete on S. 1S51» to assist in preventing aliens
(wetbacks) from entering or remaining in the U. S. illegally (pp. 1362-&5).
Final action is to he taken on the hill Tues., Feb. 26 .

, 7 . MILITARY TRAINING. Rep. Furcolo, Mass., spoke in opposition to the military
training hill, H. R, 5904, and proposed instead that young men receive trai
\ ing near their homes during the summer months so as not to interrupt their
cation (pp. 13 & 6 - 9 )•

1 ??. FOR&IGN AFFAIRS. Rep. Berry, S. Dak., explained the purnose of his measure,

H. R®s • 514, directing the State Department to inform tfao Houee o'f any agree¬
ments reached hy President Trunan with the Prime Minister of Great Britain in
their recent talks (p. 1360 ).

FOOD PRIORS.

19 . / ReT)S. Keselton and Martin, Mass., inserted memorials of the Mass,*? Legislature
urging enactment of laws which will lower the K high cost of £ 0 Cd n (p. 1390 ).

?0. EXPENDITURES. Received a Racine, ¥is., Manufacturers 1 Association petition urg-
; ing reduction in Government expenditures (p. 1390). &

\ ~ ~ /

BILLS INTRODUCED — February 2^

21. EXTENSION WORK. H. R. hy Rap. Albert, Okla., to provide for the further

development of cooperative agricultural extension* work; to Agriculture Committe*
(p. 1390). . /

22. RUBBER. H. R. 6737 , by Rep. Vinson, $a., to extend the Rubber Act of 1946 (pub¬

lic law 649, 30th Cong.); to ArnHd Service^ Committee (n. 1390).

23 . TRANSPORTATION. H. R. 6774 , by Del. Bartlett, Alaska, and S. 2721, by Sen. Mag-

nuson, Wash., to provide transportailp$n on Canadian vessels.between certain
points in Alaska and points in the .If. Sy; to Merchant Marine and Fisheries Com¬
mittee and S. Interstate and Forejgn Commerce Committee (pp. 1390 and 1313)*.

f \ ' ’

Y MINERALS. S. 2723 » by Sen. Anderson, to anenft the Mineral Leasing Act of Feb.

25, 1920, as amended, to authorise the Secretary of Interior to provide for com¬
petitive bidding for certain leases issued thereunder; to Interior and Insular
Affairs Committee (p. 1313). Sen. Anderson inserted his statement explaining
the purposes of the bill (pp. 1313 "^)•

25. IRRIGATION. S. 2720, by Sen. O’Mahoney (for himself ah^ Sens. Hunt and 3utler,

Nebr.), to approve contracts negotiated with certain irrigation districts; to
Interior and Insular Affairs Committee (p. 1313)*

.1 ;£ Jr

26. COMMERCE. H. R. 6765 , by Rep. Rhodes, Pa., to protect the national defense ef¬

fort and thp* normal flow of interstate and foreign commerce ffem the interfer¬
ences caused by the movement of business enterprises to premise^.leased from
States and political subdivisions of States; to Interstate and Foreign Commerce
Committee (p.- 1390 ).

/ ITEMS IN APPENDIX

FARM INCOME. Sen. Thye inserted John W. Ball’s Washington Post article, ,r F,arn
. /Income Up But Profits Sag u (p. A1154).

28. EGG PRICES. Sen. Thye inserted a Minneapolis Star article requesting that ac-

tion be taken to do something about the low price of eggs on the fam (p. A 1155 ).

29. FARM LABOR. Extension of remarks of Rep. Welch, Mo., urging that provision he
made for improvement in the selective-service system to defer essential farm
workers (p. All 66 ).

30. FLOOD CONTROL. Extension of remarks of Rep. Dague, ?a., favoring up-stream soil-
conservation methods of flood control and including a Saturday. Evening Post ar¬
ticle explaining some of the functions of the Army Engineers in flood control
work (p. AllSO). • /

31 . PRICE CONTROLS. Rep. Poulson, Calif., inserted Las Angeles Times,,-articles re¬

porting on the community pricing test programs conducted by CEPS (pp. A1157-S).

\ /

32. LIVESTOCK AND MEATV Sen. llundt inserted a South- Dakota Stockgrower article cri¬

ticizing 0?S regulations on slaughtering (pp. AII 59 — 60 )•.

33 . REORG-ANIZATIOIT. Sen. Martin inserted Dr. Robert L. Johnson* s (chairman, Citizen*
Committee for the Hoover Report) recent talk summarizing the activities of that
organization (tdt). All- 60 —l). .

34. RECLAMATION. Rom. Harrison, Wyo., inserted resolutions of the Wyoming Natural
Resources Board urging retxra^inrfion of Interior's program on hydroelectric
mower and favoring amendment o£ the l 60 -acre limitation in the Reclamation Act

35 . MINERALS; SUBMARGINAL LAUDS. Sen. ganger inserted a letter from E.. W. Doherty,
publisher of.the Herald, Killdeer, Dak/, opposing the sale to former owners
of mineral rights to lands punchased%n$4r the submarginal' lands program, and
his renly (p. All49-5 • '

36 . PRESIDENTIAL VETO. Extension of remarks Rep. Celler, IT. Y., favoring his

bill, H. R. 5561 , to redefine the Presient'* s power of veto and to include auth¬
ority to veto Senate and House concurrent resolutions (pp. .1152-3)*

/ \

37 . NEWSPRINT. Extension of remarks of Rep. Ccllers. N. Y., urging an investigation

of newsprint manufacturers ifi view of the rising prices, and including his let
ter to the Attorney General/ on the subject (pp. All93~^-)» .

32 . ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY. Rep'. Kerns, ?a., inserted an Erie (pfu) Times article
onrosing this proposedAprojoct (p* A1155)*

Rep. Van Zandt, Pa., inserted a Canadian Letter article describing the sol¬
vency of Canada as a nation, and suggested that Canada should build the Seaway

(p. All64).

Rem. Keogh, N. Y., inserted a Brooklyn Eagle editorial.favoring this project
(p. A1122). " /

39 .

EXPENDITURES. Rep. Toliefson. Wash., inserted a'Bank of America report urging
roductions/in Government expenditures (pp. A1154-5)*

Rep. jo ole , N. Y., inserted a Corning (N. Y.) Evening Leader editorial op¬
posing the -pro-posed Centred Arizona reclamation project as a R Governmental extra-
vagan^e* 1 (p. AlloS).

Intension of remarks of Rep. Bender, Ohio, urging reductions in Government
exr^nditur es (p. AII 73 ) • 0 q 0

COMMITTEE HEARINGS ANN001T0MSNTS FOR FEB? 2b:. S..Banking and Currency, import con¬
trols (ex.); H. Arroropriations, Agriculture and other appropriation bills (eki);

S. ..Civil Service, federal personnel molicies. (ex.); S. Foreign P.ela/tions, St. Law—
rehce Seaway; and S. Public Works, Federal aid highway bill.

- 0 O 0 -

1952

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE

1361

dom can be pilloried. Freedom can be
drugged. But in the long run freedom
will not die.

The people of Czechoslovakia, among
all the people of the Western World,
stand high in their love of freedom. Free
people get about the kind of government
that they deserve. That is an axiom of
political science the truth of which has
been demonstrated many times. But a
people who have been deprived of their
liberty by aggression are hardly in a posi¬
tion to say what kind'Of government they
prefer. Totalitarian balloting is a farce.
We all know that. Witt? machine guns
pointed at the back of on<Hs neck one can
hardly be expected to resist. The heart
may be anxious and the mtod may be
willing, but the power is not there.

Totalitarian aggressors essentially are
bullies. What the Second World War
showed was that, once the power olthe
bully is taken away, behind the facadn„of
bravado is the cringing cowardice of tr
weakling. The Nazis could not survive
in a world of fair play and equal power.
Neither will the Communist aggressors.

In the long run there is no force so
strong as free nations aroused. That
thought was expressed by our own re¬
vered President Wilson. Woodrow Wil¬
son, in a very real sense, was godfather
at the birth of the Czechoslovak Repub¬
lic. Vindication, when it comes, will be
sweet. The Czech people, once they are
relieved of their shackles will arise as
only a free people can arise. They will
regain their freedom, and let us hope
and pray they will regain it in the near
future.

TELEVISING OF COMMITTEE HEARINGS

Mr. MARTIN of Massachusetts. Mr.
Speaker, I rise to propound a parliamen¬
tary inquiry.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman will
state it.

Mr. MARTIN of Massachusetts. Mr.
Speaker, several days ago the Commit¬
tee on Un-American Activities called a
meeting to be held in Detroit and, I un¬
derstand, voted to have those hearings
televised.

I now understand that the televising
of the hearings has been canceled. I
understand further that the Speaker,
whom we all have great confidence, ha
taken the position he has the authority
under the rules of the House to call off
the televising of the hearings.

. I also understand that the ^Speaker
justifies his decision on the gr/ind that
the Committee on Un-American Activi¬
ties operates under the general rules of
the House, which of courses true. The
general rules of the Ifouse give the
Speaker the right or prwilege of passing
upon television, radio, or anything
photographic, as far as the House is
concerned. But l/uestion, Mr. Speaker,
whether this authority would apply to a
hearing held ijt . Detroit.

I call the/Speaker’s attention to the
fact that under section 319, Secrecy of
Committee Procedure, there is the fol¬
lowing efuotation:

It 1 s/for the committee to determine, in
its discretion, whether the proceedings of
the/committee shall he open or not.

From that provision under section 319
It is clearly implied that the committee
shall be the judge of what publicity it
might desire. Furthermore, in my opin¬
ion, it is more of an authority than the
Speaker could assume under the gen¬
eral rules of the House.

I note also under the rule, under
which, as I understand it, the order to
prevent the Detroit television was given,
it is stated that—

The rules of the House are hereby made
the rules of Its standing committees so far
as applicable.

I believe it would be stretching au¬
thority considerably to say that because
of this rule the Speaker has the right to
interpose his own power over a commit¬
tee as to its own publicity. It could, I
am free to admit, be well argued that
the chairman of the committee acting
as head might have the authority.

May I also call attention that televi¬
sion was used by the subcommittee in¬
vestigating the tax scandals; the Mad¬
den select committee investigating the
trocities relative to the Katyn mas-
sabre; the Hebert subcommittee inves?
tiga'ting armed services procurements,
and the Un-American Activities Com¬
mittee 'itself in investigating the .Reds
in Hollywood. In the Senate thj/e has
been the Kefauver commitbfe, the
Atomic Energy Committee, th^ District
of Columbia Committee, ancLthe Russell
committee. All those decisions to tele¬
vise were made by the committees them¬
selves.

Mr. Speaker, for tfigrification of the
rules and so that we may understand
what may be expected'from now on,,I
submit my parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. RANKIN, r Mr. Speaker, I would
like to be heard;

The SFEAJ?teR. The gentleman can¬
not be heard on the parliamentary in¬
quiry of tjre gentleman from Massachu¬
setts. /

Mr. /lANKIN. Mr. Speaker, I would
like tib answer his parliamentary in-
quir

fhe SPEAKER. The Chair is ready
rule.

The gentleman from Massachusetts, as
always, has been kind enough to inform
the Chair that he was going to submit
this parliamentary inquiry.

It is true that some committees and
some subcommittees of the House have
begun the practice of having their hear¬
ings and their meetings televised; but in
each an devery instance when the Chair
has called attention to the fact that he
did not think the rules of the House
authorized this, each and every chair¬
man of a committee or subcommittee has
ceased doing so at that moment, as far
as the Chair understands at this time.

The Chair is operating under the rules
of the House. One of the rules reads as
follows:

The rules of the House are hereby made
the rules of Its standing committees so far as
applicable.

There is no authority, and as far as
the Chair knows, there is no rule grant¬
ing the privilege of television- of the
House of Representatives, and the Chair

interprets that as applying to these com¬
mittees or subcommittees, whether th^y
sit in Washington or elsewhere. As/fhe
gentleman from Massachusetts say/ the
Chair, whoever is the Speaker, h/T con¬
trol of this end of the Capitol ,6nd the
House Office Buildings. Then/being no
rule with reference to television or radio,
the Chair interprets that thO rules of the
House shall apply to tjre committees
whether they sit in Washington or out¬
side of Washington. /The Chair might
indulge in a slight aoiount of histrionics
in saying that if committees all wanted
to be televised, arid they were not al¬
lowed to be telqyised under the rules of
the House in the Capitol or in the House
Office Buildings, why they would prob¬
ably move Aut of town and think that
they wouhl escape the rule, or make a
rule in that fashion.

Mr. JtftARTIN of Massachusetts. Mr.
Speaker, I appreciate that this is a twi¬
light' zone which has not been clearly
dinned as to just what authority the
Speaker might have, and I think we
/should at the earliest possible moment,
have some definite rule established. I
want to say, too, in fairness to the Speak¬
er that there have been instances—not
this particular one—that called for his
disapproval of broadcasting. In other
words the decision did not- come just
upon the Detroit broadcast.

The SPEAKER. In every instance the
Chair has held exactly like he has re¬
garding this proposed hearing in Detroit.

Mr. MARTIN of Massachusetts. I
think television and broadcasting is here
to stay and will probably increase in
popularity as the days go by. For that
reason we should have revision of the
rules to define authority.

The SPEAKER. If the House adopts
a rule, the Chair will abide by and en¬
force it, like he does all of the rules of
the House of Representaitves.

Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Speaker, a parlia¬
mentary inquiry.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman will
state it.

Mr. RANKIN. In order to do that we
would have to amend the rules of the
House.

The SPEAKER. That is correct.

Mr. RANKIN. The Chair was simply
calling attention to the rules of the
House which do not permit this tele¬
vision in the House of Representatives
or in any committee of the House’of
Representatives, and the Chair is en¬
tirely right about that.

Mr. MARTIN of Massachusetts. Mr.
Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, it
is not quite as clear as all that.

Mr. RANKIN. I hope the rule will
never be changed, myself.

ROBERT L. DOUGHTON PARKWAY

(Mr. ABBOT? asked and was given
permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his
remarks.)

Mr. ABBITT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to
join my colleague the gentleman from
Virginia [Mr. Stanley] in opposing the
joint resolution (H. J. Res. 387) chang¬
ing the name of the Blue Ridge Parkway
to the Robert L. Doughton Parkway.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE

1362

First, I desire to say there is no Mem¬
ber of the House of Representatives
whom I hold in higher esteem than I
do Mr. Doughton, of North Carolina.
Mr. Doughton is one of the most capable,
hard-working, conscientious, and able
Members of our body. He has done a
great work for the people of our coun¬
try. He has performed a great service
in helping secure the Blue Ridge Park¬
way, that great scenic drive which trav¬
erses nearly 500 miles through the Blue
Ridge Mountains.

Then, too, I am happy to state that
our colleague, Mr. Doughton, himself,
opposes this resolution, believing that the
parkway has the appropriate name at
present, and I commend him for his un¬
selfish stand on this matter. Our oppo¬
sition to changing the name of the park¬
way is not intended as a reflection upon
Mr. Doughton in the least.

The Blue Ridge Parkway, which trav¬
erses the Blue Ridge Mountains from
the Shenandoah National Park in Vir¬
ginia to the Great Smoky Mountains in
North Carolina and Tennessee, is most
appropriately named. It is in reality a
great boulevard, and one of the most
scenic drives in our country. It is known
far and wide as the Blue Ridge Parkway
because of its location, and will be re¬
membered as such as long as our country
exists. I oppose the changing of the
name of this great parkway, which is
now one of the most beautiful scenic
motor routes in the world, and trust that
the Senate will defeat House Joint Reso¬
lution 387. • -

ALIENS ENTERING OR REMAINING IN THE
UNITED STATES ILLEGALLY

Mr. LYLE. Mr. Speaker, by direction
of the Committee on Rules, I call up
House Resolution 529 and ask for its im¬
mediate consideration.

The Clerk read the resolution, as fol¬
lows:

Resolved, That immediately upon the
adoption of this resolution it shall he in
order to move that the House resolve itself
into the Committee of the Whole House on
the State of the Union for the considera¬
tion of the bill (S. 1851) to assist in pre¬
venting aliens from entering or remaining
in the United States illegally. That after
general debate, which shall be confined to
the bill and continued not to exceed 2 hours,
to be equally divided and controlled by the
chairman and ranking minority member of
the Committee on the Judiciary, the bill
shall be read for amendment under the
5-minute rule. At the conclusion of the
consideration of the bill for amendment,
the committee shall rise and report the bill
to the House with such amendments as may
have been adopted and the previous question
ehall be considered as ordered on the bill
end amendments thereto to final passage
without intervening motion except one mo¬
tion to recommit.

Mr. LYLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such
time as he may desire to the gentleman
from Massachusetts [Mr. McCormack!.

Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Speaker, for
several years I have been warning of the
growth of a Soviet beachhead in the
Western Hemisphere right under our
noses in Guatemala.

I have particularly warned our friend¬
ly Latin American neighbors, Latin
American states who want us to remain

good neighbors as Franklin Roosevelt
made us good neighbors, of the misun¬
derstandings as to Latin American in¬
tentions towards the United States which
can be engendered by this Guatemalan
cancer.

Now, new confirmation comes from
irreproachable independent sources that
this Guatemalan penetration by the Sov¬
iets has reached the point that Guate¬
mala is now truly a Soviet Guatemala.
We of the United States have to recog¬
nize that we have a full-fledged Soviet
beachhead on our flank—and that the
Latin American nations which are
friendly to the United States have a full
fledged Soviet beachhead on their flank
too.

I ask permission to introduce into
the Record five articles on this subject
by independent American journalists.
Three of them are by Mr. Ludwell Den¬
ny, of the Scripps-Howard Press, who
has been known to us in Washington
for many years. Another is by Mr. Dun¬
can Aikman, of the Washington Post,
both have recently returned from Gua¬
temala. These articles have been widely
syndicated throughout the United States.
They have sunk deep into the aware¬
ness of the American people.

The other article is from Time of last
week, describing the arrival from Mos¬
cow of one Victor Gutierriez, bearing
anti-American orders from Moscow to
the party organizations in Guatemala.
This, too, has had the widest circulation
in the United States.

I am urging every Member of Congress
to read these articles and understand
their deep significance. We now have a
Soviet beachead on this side of the At¬
lantic and on this side of the Pacific. I
beg our Latin American friends, to whom
we want to remain friends—our Latin
American neighbors, to whom we want
to remain good neighbors—to under¬
stand the significance to them of the fact
that we are fully aware of this danger
in Guatemala and that in good neighbor¬
liness we hope they will understand and
help us eliminate this Soviet danger.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent
to include in my remarks the articles to
which I have referred.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Mas¬
sachusetts?

There was no objection.

(The articles referred to are as
follows:)

[Prom the Washington Daily News of
February 13, 1952]

Marriage of Convenience—Communist
Clique Runs Guatemala
(By Ludwell Denny)

Guatemala City, February 4.—Reds run
Guatemala, tho the people are not Commun¬
ist and the government is more nationalist
than Stanlinist. This is made possible by a
marriage of convenience between Moscow
and the local nationalist boss, ex-President
Juan Jose Arevalo.

The unnatural alliance is based on hatred
of the United States. Like the German
Nazis in the days of Hitler-Stalin partner¬
ship, Guatemalan national socialists think
they can use Stalin and then dump him when
no longer needed. Maybe. Meanwhile a
handful of Reds—1,500 at most—call the tune
for a nation of 3,700,000.

February 25

President Jacobo Arbenz apparently is not
a Communist. He is the weak and uncom¬
fortable puppet of Arevalo.

Arevalo is a former idealistic college pro¬
fessor gone wrong. He taught in Argentina,
flirted with Peronism, and got the personal
power itch when he returned to Guatemala'
to establish “spiritual socialism’’ after the
reactionary dictatorship of Jorge Ubico. He
aims to unite and rule Central America and
the Caribbean against the United States—
in the name of democracy, of course.

Tho the Communist Party is illegal under
the constitution, it operates openly with
government protection and acts as host to
Red “world” conferences. The government-
controlled press is pro-Russian and anti-
American. Anti-Soviet editors are intimi¬
dated, and anti-Communist organizations
and demonstrations are discouraged by the
Government.

The most prominent Communists are Jose
Manuel Fortunay, secretary-general of the
party and editor of its newspaper, Octubre,
and Victor Manuel Gutierrez, head of the
Confederation of Labor, which is affiliated
with the Red International. Gutierrez re¬
turned last month from Moscow.

Th§ loudest fellow traveler is Roberto Al¬
varado Fuentes, president of congress—and
as such constitutional successor to the presi¬
dent of the Republic if the latter dies or is
incapacitated. Fuentes attended the Soviet
peace conference in Vienna.

mediocrities

All three of these men are mediocre. Be¬
fore any important Communist move, an
abler Stalin agent usually arrives from Cuba,
France, or Mexico—often the chief of the
Latin-American Red Labor Federation, Vin¬
cente Lombardo Toledano. Russians so far
have kept their own identity secret.

While Communist membership is small, its
power is great. This is achieved not only
through the tie-up with supernationalists,
but also by—

Superior organization, rigid discipline, and
experienced Moscow direction.

Capture of the trade-union movement.

Bribery of key officials and officers.

Threats of assassination and other terror¬
ism.

Exploiting public suspicion of alleged
United States imperialism, and hatred of
Yankee monopoly capital—meaning the
United Fruit Co., the International Railways
of Central America, Pan-American Air Lines,
Electric Bond and Share, and various Ameri¬
can insurance companies. The United States,
as arch-enemy, has replaced Britain, with
which Guatemala has an old quarrel over
British Honduras.

Non-Communist forces are largely unor¬
ganized and temporarily impotent. This is
due to fear, ignorance, indifference, internal
rivalries, and a national inferiority complex.

About 70 percent of the population is illit¬
erate. The remainder is politically imma¬
ture. Nearly two-thirds of the people are
Indians, who do not speak the Country’s
language. They live in unfriendly moun¬
tains, growing a little corn, following their
ancient customs, worshiping the pagan gods
of their Mayan ancestors.

They never heard of Washington, much
less Moscow. Guatemala City is an alien
capital of mixed-breeds and whites, whose
political plots do not interest the Indian—
as long as he is let. alone. Perhaps some
day this unknown and unknowing Indian
Guatemala will erupt in terrible fury like its
smouldering volcanoes, but not yet.

ANTIFOREIGN

The inferiority complex of the mixed-
blood minority is the basis of general anti-
foreign feeling. Moreover, foreign capital
is associated in the public mind with the
long and cruel dictatorship of Jorge Ubico.
There is no love for Russia. But Russia

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE

1952

seems far away, while the United States Is
near—a foreign power to hate.

Of course there are anti-Communist
groups, even though they are not effective
so far. These include the Roman Catholic
Church, the Army, the planters and mer¬
chants, and the foreign corporations.

. Though the country is Catholic in name,
it has been anticlerical for a century. There
are only 140 priests, half of them foreign.
Many churches never see a priest. The per¬
centage of religious marriages runs as low
as 2 percent. Last summer there was a spon¬
taneous successful demonstration against
a Communist replacing a nun as head of an
orphanage. But in general the small Cath¬
olic hierarchy is on the defensive, neither
anxious nor able to challenge Red power
here.

The army by nature is non-Communist.
Eventually it probably will overthrow a Red
or fellow traveler regime—unless it waits
until Stalin has taken it from within.

** Coffee planters, merchants, and bankers
dislike the leftist government. But they lack
the intelligence and courage to curb its ex¬
cesses. Most of them have “a tomorrow”
temperament, and are too individualistic to
act together.

FEAR

They fear opposition would bring financial
reprisals—or assassination.

This fear of murder is the main cause of
lack of effective challenge to Stalinism not
only outside the government, but also inside.
Responsible persons close to the situation
think President Arbenz is trying to wiggle
out of Red control, but is moving cautiously
for fear of assassination.

If Arbenz dies suddenly—it is reported and
denied that he has an incurable disease— the
Stalin-Arevalo alliance may break over choice
of a successor. Already there is a struggle
over the Reds’ effort to reelect in March their
stooge, Fuentes, as President of Congress
and thus constitutional successor to Arbenz
in case of death.

[From the Washington Daily News of

February 14, 1952]

Economic Suicide in Guatemala—Reds Out
To Wreck United Fruit Co.

(By Ludwell Denny)

Guatemala City, February 4.—The Reds
behind the ultranationalist government here
are trying to destroy foreign capital in the
strategic Central American region.

They have picked the United Fruit Co.
as their main target. If they can wreck the
oldest, largest and best-established corpora¬
tion, others should fall easily.

Nothing so old-fashioned as expropriation
with compensation is contemplated. They
don’t intend to pay. And neither the Com¬
munists, nor this anti-American regime
which is so friendly to them, could operate
the complex banana plantations and essen¬
tial scientific, transport and marketing or¬
ganizations.

The idea simply is to get everything pos¬
sible out of the company and then kill it.
Of course, that is like killing the goose that
lays the golden egg. But the extreme na¬
tionalists are too full of hatred for what
they call Yankee imperialism to think of
the welfare of their country. As for the
Reds, the more destruction and chaos the
better.

economic paralysis

Much of Guatemala’s prosperity flows
from the $200,000,000 of United States pri¬
vate capital invested here. If United Fruit
and other foreign companies are forced to
withdraw from the country, national rev¬
enues will fall, unemployment will rise, and
there will be economic paralysis.

That could rob the regime of its two chief
assets—money to keep the army content
and a foreign capitalist scapegoat to ap¬
pease the public. But it might have the
opposite effect.

If direct intervention by Washington were
involved—other than through International
organizations—that could easily drive Gua¬
temala and other Latin American countries
closer to Stalin. Or if United Fruit ap¬
peared to run from communism instead of
fight it, Honduras and Costa Rica might be
encouraged to copy Guatemala’s madness.

EVERYBODY LOSES

As long as the conflict continues, every¬
body loses except Stalin, who profits by the
weakness of others. It weakens not only
Guatemala and United Fruit, but also the
United States—which in this world crisis
needs stability and security in this strategic
area.

Whatever the mistakes of United Fruit
In the early days of banana dictatorships, in
recent years the company has shown states¬
manship. On its own initiative it has revised
its contracts greatly to the benefit of Hon¬
duras and Costa Rica, and has tried to do the
same in Guatemala.

In this country its wage rates are three
times as high as those of native employers.
On top of that it provides many of its em¬
ployees with free hospitals, free schools, free
homes with utilities and gardens, and below-
cost groceries and other essentials.

NO APPEAL

Despite this, United Fruit—and its partly
owned railway subsidiary—is the victim here
of arbitrary, discriminatory, and confisca¬
tory labor laws and regulations. These are
administered by partisan labor tribunals
from which there is no appeal to the Su¬
preme Court or the Constitution.

The crux of the present dispute is whether
the company has the right to cease opera¬
tions in its storm-destroyed western planta¬
tion and disease-infected eastern plantation,
until it can get a fair contract and condi¬
tions to justify new investment. About $30,-
000,000 is required to restore the original
$60,000,000 properties.

The Guatemalan Government insists the
company has no legal right to cease opera¬
tions or delay new investment, that it owes
half a million in back wages, and that it is
liable retroactively for 25 years’ severance pay
which would bankrupt the company. No
profit was made by the company here last
year. Currently, it is losing $1,000,000 a
month just to hold on.

ONE-FOURTH BUDGET

If United Fruit is driven out of Guatemala,
the country will lose about $15,000,000 a year
in payrolls, taxes, and other income. That is
about a fourth of the national budget and
nearly a fifth of the national gross product.
Upward of 20,000 workers would lose their
jobs on the. plantations, railway, and docks,
and another 20,000 would be indirectly af¬
fected—including families, a total of about
150,000 people.

Such is the tragedy of Guatemala. One of
the richest lands in the world potentially, it
requires United States capital and leadership
to eradicate poverty and disease and illit¬
eracy. Yet it is dominated by anti-American
nationalist fanatics, who think they can play
with Stalin without destroying themselves
and their country.

[From the Washington Daily News of
February 15, 1952]

Central America Rich Field for Reds
(By Ludwell Denny)

San Jose, Costa Rica, February 3.—Stalin
Is extending his activities from Guatemala
southward to the Panama Canal.

His potential is large. In most Central
American countries Soviet influence is more
potent than appears from limited member¬
ship of the Communist Party.

Instead of aiming at open political control,
which is impossible at this stage, the object
is to—

Exploit anti-American feeling.

1363

Use the extreme nationalist and national-
socialist movements.

Organize Red trade unions.

Create maximum political confusion, social
unrest, and economic chaos.

FERTILE FIELD

Central America Is a rich field for such
Red operations. Most of the countries have
low living standards, high illiteracy rates,
political instability, and acute suspicion of
alleged Yankee “imperialism.” They have
known more dictatorship than democracy.
Nationalism Is almost a mania.

Panama is an example of Communist abil¬
ity to create chaos. For more than 3 months
Reds have managed to string out and ex¬
plode into mass riots what started out to be
relatively harmless student demonstrations.
In the current presidential campaign the
small Communist Party is less important
than disguised Red activities in other parties.

” BORING IN

Unable to make a deal with the dominant
Nationalist group and its presidential can¬
didate, Col. Jose Antonio Remon, who con¬
trols the military, the Reds are boring within
the main coalition of opposition groups
headed by Roberto Chlari.

Here in Costa Rica, adjoining Panama,
there is a larger Communist Party. Count¬
ing fellow travelers, Reds number between
8 and 10 percent of the politically conscious
population. They have an able leader in
Manuel Mora.

Costa Rican Reds are underground. They
publish a clandestine weekly paper. Their
labor organizations have changed names to
“independent” unions, but the leadership
remains the same.

To get political power here, they must
make a deal with a nationalist-socialist re¬
gime as in Guatemala. President Otilio
Ulate, a Democratic publisher, is effectively
anti-Communist. But he will not succeed
himself, and party maneuvers are now be¬
ginning for the election 18 months hence.

NEXT PRESIDENT

Jose Figueres, who ruled the country
through a junta regime after the 1948 revo¬
lution, probably will be the next President.

Because he is a radical and a close friend
of the Guatemalan political boss, Arevalo,
who has given the Reds a free hand there,
many persons here fear that Costa Rica un¬
der Figueres would go the way of Guatemala.
I "2 denies this.

In an interview with this correspondent,
he stressed these differences:

Unlike Arevalo, he knows the United States
well and is not anti-American.

INDIVIDUALISTIC

Costa Ricans have a higher cultural and
literacy level than other Central American
states, are more individualistic, and have no
army. They are familiar with the Russian
record and don't like it.

While he was in power Figueres national¬
ized banks and tried to nationalize proper¬
ties of the (American) Electric Bond & Share
Corp. He says he favors fair compensation.

Whether Figueres will or will not go fur¬
ther left is anybody's guess.

Honduras, more dependent on United
Fruit than any other country has no out¬
standing nationalist-socialist leader like
Costa Rica and Guatemala and no military
strong man like Panama. President Juan
Manuel Galvez is a popular, democratically
minded man. He likes the United States
and deals fairly with American capital which
is developing his country.

DECEPTIVE CALM

But the Honduras calm is deceptive. It is
fruitful for Stalin for two reasons.

One is the extreme backwardness of the
country. The people are wretchedly poor,
two-thirds are illiterate, and social morals
are low. Though the country is nominally

1334 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE

Catholic, there are less than 100 priests for
1,250,000 people.

The political danger is not in the Com¬
munist Party membership of a few hun¬
dred, but among "innocents” or fellow trav¬
elers in the strong so-called Liberal Party.

If Stalin continues to strengthen his hold
on neighboring Guatemala, it probably will
not be long before the danger flares up in
Honduras.

[Prom the Washington Post of February
17, 1952]

Red Front Tightens Grip on Guatemala
(By Duncan Aikman)

(Mr. Aikman, a newspaper and magazine
writer, has traveled extensively in South
America and is the author of a book on inter-
American relations, The All-American
Front.)

Guatemala, Central America’s most popu¬
lous republic, has been developing for several
years as Soviet communism’s prize outpost in
the Western Hemisphere. Communist pen¬
etration and Communist control of .politics
and government policies still appear to be
getting worse rather than better.

Yet a deep-end plunge into communism
could do Guatemala’s economy as much dam¬
age as Premier Mossadegh’s expropriation of
British oil interests has done to Iran.

How Guatemala has come so near that
leap—and what can be done about it—are
questions which are puzzling United States
policy-makers as well as plenty of Guate¬
malans.

The background of Communist success is a
clutter of longstanding social and economic
difficulties, worse than in some republics but
in no way abnormal by Latin American
standards.

Guatemala is about the size of Pennsyl¬
vania, with a population of about 3,500,000,
mostly Indian peasants on the land. They
were in virtual peonage during the Spanish
colonial centuries. After independence in
1839, the exploitation went on practically
unchanged under a succession of military
dictators.

Between 1930 and 1944 a dictator named
Jorge Ubico made a few improvements. He
built highways, a few schools in the hinter¬
land and enough housing projects in the
larger towns to show that civilized living
conditions were possible for labor groups.

Otherwise, Ubico ruled through police ter¬
ror. Toward the end he proscribed all critics
of the regime as public enemies, especially
would-be labor organizers. So when Ubico
was thrown out in an ostensibly democratic
revolution late in 1944, underground labor
groups took a lead in organizing the new
situation.

A large number of exiles soon filtered back
from Mexico and other Latin American Re¬
publics, where they had been affiliate3 with
Mexican labor leader Vicente Lombardo Tole-
dano’s pro-Communist Latin American Con¬
federation of Labor (CATL). They were
joined by numerous agents of the Soviet em¬
bassy in Mexico City, and within a few
months the newcomers were substantially in
control of the young Guatemalan labor move¬
ment.

Meanwhile, an exiled university professor,
Juan Jose Arevalo, had returned from
Buenos Aires, where he had picked up quite
a few ideas of aggressive nationalism and
government economic controls from the
Peron regime.

The new elements running the government
made Arevalo head of a three-man junta
administering afiairs provisionally, and in
1946 brought about his election as president.

In 1946, too, a new constitution was adopt¬
ed. Among other innovations, it established
labor courts with powers in a broad field of
jurisdiction roughly equivalent to those of
the Republic’s civil courts. The Communist-
front politicians quickly took over the labor
courts’ key posts.

Arevalo, no Communist in personal beliefs,
proved easy prey for the “front” politicos for
several reasons. He refused to suppress Com¬
munist propaganda because he believed that
after centuries of repression, Guatemala
needed an ideal civil liberties regime. He
favored extreme economic regulation meas¬
ures as a means of lifting a peonage economy
by its bootstraps. He was also an intense
sentimental nationalist.

Arevalo saw that Gutemala’s second larg¬
est export crop, bananas—coffee is still big¬
ger—was controlled by a foreign corporation,
the United Fruit Co.; that its power was
furnished by the Electric Bond and Share
interests, and that its railroads were owned
by a British-American combine in which
United Fruit was prominent. He agreed with
his pro-Communist advisers that this was
"Yanqui imperialism” and that something
ought to be done about it.

So, while the leftist press roared constantly
against foreign ownership of the country’s
resources, the fruit company began to be
subjected to an endless series of pinpricks.
Its taxes, export operations, and labor
policies became subjects for chronic investi¬
gation. Strikes became the order of the day
on its plantations and docks, with the cer¬
tainty that the labor courts would always
find for the strikers.

UFC weathered these difficulties in fairly
good order to the end of the Arevalo admin¬
istration last March and down through the
first 6 months of the term of his successor.
President Jacobo Arbenz Guzman. Then
last September a violent Pacific storm deso¬
lated 10,000 acres of banana trees on the
company’s Tiquisate plantations. Since
then the Tiquisate labor force of nearly
4,000 has been laid off pending agreements
with the Government to start a $10,000,000
rehabilitation program for the property.

The Government’s attitude toward this
project was revealed in a decision of a labor
appeals court early in January. It ordered
the company to pay back wages of approxi¬
mately $645,000, plus indemnities, to its
Tiquisate workers, and placed an export em-,
bargo on Tiquisate products until the award
is paid. The case is now on its way to the
Guatemala Supreme Court, with little hope,
however, that the labor tribunal’s judgment
will be reversed.

UFC’s troubles, however, are by no means a
lone example of pressure from the Com¬
munist politicos to starve out foreign invest¬
ment capital. A law which went into effect
last month requires foreign insurance
companies to invest the impossible sum of
90 percent of their reserves in Guatemala.

Meanwhile, the Communist front has in¬
creased its strength as well as its pressures.
Four leftist splinter parties have just signed
a pact which will give them control of the
next session of congress in which they will
have a combined majority of nearly 40 seats
in a 52-member, 1-chamber body.

Guatemala’s political skids, in short, are
rigged for a descent into deeper Communist
waters, whether by the expropriation route
or by equivalent persecution of private busi¬
ness interests.

[From Time of February 11, 1952]

The Hemisphere

GUATEMALA-THE PRICE OF CAVIAR

To the Kremlin’s Latin-American desk,
Victor Manuel Gutierrez, 28, must look like a
veritable committee of Red partisans. Gu¬
tierrez is: (1) a devout Marxist who be¬
lieves that communism is one of the highest
revolutionary ideals of humanity; (2) a
member of Guatemala’s Congress; (3) a pro¬
fessor who teaches history to future teach¬
ers; (4) boss of a 50,000 member labor fed¬
eration; and (5) chief of the Communist-line
Revolutionary Workers Party. Gutierrez had
but one deviation, he sometimes indulged in
the luxury of squabbling with Jose Manuel
Fortuny, leader of a group of Guatemalan in¬

February 25

tellectuals and students calling themselves,
forthrightly, the Communist Party (Time,
July 16). Last December Gutierrez was re¬
warded for his faith and works by a trip to
Moscow and a chance to test the sleazy com¬
fort of the Hotel Metropole.

Back in Guatemala last week, Gutierrez
burbled about his junket, and painted a pic¬
ture of the Soviet Union as a place where
‘‘everyone eats well.” I gained 15 pounds in
16 days * » * but lost three on my way

home in underfed Fiance.” Last week,
Gutierrez disclosed the price of his caviar
and cutlets. His Revolutionary Workers
Party, he announced, must disband and join
Fortuny’s Communist Party. „

Closing Communist ranks apparently was
a tactical reaction to growing anti-Red senti¬
ment in Guatemala. In December, Guate¬
mala City elected a mayor on an anti-Com-
munist platform. Since then, 178 anti-Red
committees throughout the country have
collected 100,000 signatures on a petition sent
to the Government demanding the dissolu¬
tion of the Communist Party, because it
clearly violates article 32 of the constitution
prohibiting political organizations of an in¬
ternational or foreign character. With
Gutierrez’ followers in the fold on orders
from Moscow, Guatemala’s Communist Party
was doubled in size and more foreign-domi-
nated than ever. But at week’s end President
Jacobo Arbenz had not even replied to the
petition.

Mr. LYLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30
minutes to the gentleman from Oregon
[Mr. Ellsworth],

Mr. ELLSWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I
yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Martin].

Mr. MARTIN of Massachussets. Mr.
Speaker, I ask unanimous oonsent to
proceed out of order.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from
Massachusetts?

There was no objection.

Mr. MARTIN of Massachusetts. Mr.
Speaker, the underlying significance of
the protracted difficulties which beset the
United Fruit Co., an old Boston and Cape
Cod firm, and other American enter¬
prises in Guatemala rests in the fact that
international communism, according to
reliable American newspaper observers,
is successfully establishing _a beach¬
head in Guatemala. That the fruit
company, the American-owned rail¬
way—International Railways of Central
America—and other major American en¬
terprises are persistently under attack by
the Guatemalan Government and con¬
tinuously involved in so-called labor dis¬
putes contrived by Communist-domi¬
nated unions is but a symbol of the un¬
derlying struggle between two ideolo¬
gies—communism and the free way of
life.

The United Fruit Co.’s principal
plantations in Guatemala were destroyed
by hurricane on September 15,1951. Be¬
cause of this act of God, it laid off a con¬
siderable number of its workers for whom
unfortunately there was no work. A
labor court has now ruled that these em¬
ployees who have not done any work in
the 6 months since the hurricane must
now be paid unearned wages in full,
amounting to some $700,000. The su¬
preme court has without a hearing dis¬
missed an appeal that the decision of the
labor court be revoked as illegal. Con¬
sequently, the company’s properties,
equipment, buildings, and all installa¬
tions are to be sold at a forced auction on

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE 1365

1952

March 5. This act of confiscation is over¬
whelming evidence of the ruthless nature
of the Communist attack against Ameri¬
can interests in Guatemala. Interna¬
tional communism is using the Guate¬
malan situation to destroy the inter-
American system which has been pains¬
takingly created over the course of many
years, and to disrupt and dislocate the
solidarity which, up until now, has
existed among all of the American Re¬
publics. That the economy of Guate¬
mala will be wrecked in the process is of
no concern to the Kremlin.

It should be of the deepest concern to
every American Republic which believes
in and hopes for the continuance of the
inter-American system that this Guate¬
malan Communist threat to the inter-
American system be eliminated.

Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?

Mr. MARTIN of Massachusetts. I
yield.

Mi*. RANKIN. I call the attention of
the gentleman to the fact that back in
1921 or 1922, Mexico attempted to give
Japan a naval base. I believe it was on
Magdalena Bay. I am not sure whether
I have the name right or not. The
United States Government protested
against it. It was a violation of the Mon¬
roe Doctrine. The program was never
carried out.

It seems to me that if this outfit is
trying to get a base of operations any¬
where in South America or Central
America, the Monroe Doctrine should be
invoked and we should put a stop to
any such invasion.

Mr. MARTIN of Massachusetts. It
certainly shows that we ought to be
awake to the fact of what is being
attempted. „

Mr. RANKIN. It would also help to
wake up the American people to the
fact that we better stand by the Mon¬
roe Doctrine, and not let the so-called
United Nations run the world.

Mr. SPRINGER. Mr. Speaker, will
the gentleman yield?

Mr. MARTIN of Massachusetts. I
yield.

Mr. SPRINGER. May I call to the at¬
tention of the gentleman as well as the
distinguished majority leader from Mas¬
sachusetts an article in yesterday’s edi¬
torial page of the Washington Star, Feb¬
ruary 24, on Panama and the elections
going on there now, as to the effect that
the Gautemalan situation is having on
what the Communists are doing in Pan¬
ama. This is the same as has already
taken place in Guatemala. If the same
situation is transferred to Panama as
you have in Guatemala, it seriously
would affect the Panama Canal and our
control over it.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous con¬
sent to insert in the Record that article
from the February 24 issue of the Wash¬
ington Star.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Il¬
linois?

There was no objection.

(The matter referred to is as fol¬
lows:).

Panama—Our Vital Canal Has Trouble,
Too

(By Edward Tomlinson)

Panama City. —Panama, lying athwart the
vital Canal Zone, is in an alarming state of
unrest and confusion. The situation, which
threatens to erupt into Communist-led poli¬
tical upheaval, has placed the Canal Zone
on the alert.

In the light of recent occurrences in and
around the Suez Canal, development affect¬
ing Suez’s New World counterpart have a
particularly ominous look.

University and high school students have
been striking, and there has been continual
public disorder. For days at a time students
have harassed and stoned the police, some¬
times wrecking automobiles and trucks, and
at night barricading themselves in school
buildings. As a result, business activity in
Panama has been virtually paralyzed.

The reason behind the student activity is
a major mystery. But that the riots have
something to do with Panama’s red-hot
presidential campaign is unquestioned.
strange bedfellows

Fantastic political alliances have been
forged in the campaign. One of the princi¬
pal contenders for the presidency is Col.
Jose Antonio Remon, former chief and still
boss of the country’s well-disciplined 2,500-
man national police force, sole military es¬
tablishment of the republic. Opposing him
is handsome, suave, Roberto F. Chiari, promi¬
nent conservative businessman.

Behind Remon are the tightly knit police
organization and half a dozen political par¬
ties of varying faiths. Chiari is backed by a
news so-called civic alliance and splinter
groups ranging from outright reactionaries
to extreme radicals.

Standing apart, so far, are the Arnulfistas
and the small Communist Party, which is
apparently a mere decoy, since the real work
of the Reds is carried on through other
fronts, fellow travelers and individual
stooges. The Arnulfistas are the followers of
former President Arnulfo Arias. He directs
his party from a jail cell he has occupied
since a bloody revolt last May overthrew
his government and installed his vice presi¬
dent, Alcibiades Arosemena, as his successor.

Remon, a “kingmaker” who has set up.
three presidents and knocked down as many,
is considered to have an even chance for vic¬
tory, unless civil war breaks out before the
May 11 elections. But it is believed that last-
minute action of Arnulfo’s party may be
decisive. Remon and Chiari are jockeying'
for the former President’s support, with
Remon being in a position to grant Arnulfo
his freedom for the 10,000 votes he controls
from prison.

The opposition insists that the strong-
willed ex-President will' not accept such a
deal, but will remain a martyr and give his
support to Chiari. This, it is felt, might be
an empty gesture. Many observers predict
that even if Chiari is elected, Remon and
his national police would not let him take
office.

The students, who are making the head¬
lines, may well be the determining factors
in the whole political situation. They and
their parents have not only proved their
nuisance value, but also have successfully
defied the police. At least, the police did
not take any oppressive or punitive meas¬
ures against the strikers.

The reason the Arosemena administration
and the police have pussyfooted in this re¬
gard is that the death or serious injury of
a single student might set ofi a nation-wide
conflagration which would sweep both the
Government and Remon into political ob¬
livion.

RED INFLUENCE

One of the most Important diplomats In
Panama says the students are mere tools
of conflicting and sinister forces bent not
only on preventing Remon’s election, but
also on provoklngxlvll strife. The real mas¬
ters of the student groups, he says, are pro-
Communist elements who know that po¬
litical chaos in the Republic would seriously
handicap functioning of the Panama Canal.

Other new developments add to the anx¬
iety. Rumors of a general strike are circu¬
lating. Known Communists are now seeking
to organize workers in large business estab¬
lishments such as the United Fruit Co.’s
plantations in the interior of the country.

Many Panamanians believe that with Gua¬
temala thoroughly organized and brought
under the influence of the Reds, Panama is
next on the Communist list. According to
these sources, Moscow feels that the present
confused political situation in the country
makes it ripe for exploitation.

Up until very recently there was no clear-
cut local issue of importance in the cam¬
paign. But in the last 2 weeks all parties,
as well as the press and radio, have launched
violent campaigns against the American-
operated Canal Zone. An old issue is being
revived, charging commercial competition by
the Canal Zone against Panamanian busi¬
ness and industry. According to these
charges the United States is violating a 1936
treaty by manufacturing milk bottles and
other commodities in the Canal Zone for
the distribution of food products to United
States Government employees. Newspaper
editorials assert that such competition is
designed to throttle Panamanian economy
and drive f;he country toward communism.

Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?

Mr. MARTIN of Massachusetts. I
yield.

Mr. RANKIN. The danger which I
was pointing out applies also to Panama.
If a foreign country can come and es¬
tablish a naval base or an air base in
Guatemala, they might do the same
thing in Panama or anywhere else in
Central or South America, if they can get
the consent of the powers that be of the
countries involved, and in that way they
could virtually destroy the force of the
Monroe Doctrine, which has been in ex¬
istence more than 100 years.

Mr. LYLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield my¬
self such time as I may require.

Mr. Speaker, it is my purpose to dis¬
cuss the rule for the consideration of
the bill, S. 1851. The circumstances at¬
tending the consideration of this bill
are unfortunate. It is here at this mo¬
ment under some compulsion and im¬
plied threat and certainly under a cloud
of misunderstanding. All of these
things, sir, make it most unfortunate. It
is said that if this bill is not considered
and passed in a form which meets with
the full satisfaction of the President of
the United States and the Mexican Gov¬
ernment, there will be no “bracero” labor
available to assist our farmers in the
coming months of harvest.

Mr. Speaker, seldom, if ever, should
legislation be considered and enacted
under such circumstances. Legislation
should, in my judgment, be considered
only on the basis of whether it is good
or bad, needed or not needed. Then too,
sir, there are many misunderstandings
and misstatements which have resulted
in the past years from the influx of

1366

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE

Mexican nationals into the southwestern
part of the United States. This misun¬
derstanding has generated unnecessary
heat and has cast unfair aspersions on
the farmers and ranchers of that part
of the country. None of us, sir, and I re¬
peat none of us, has any quarrel with
the expressed purpose of this bill, S. 1851.
The purpose expressed is to protect all
of the borders of the United States
against the illegal entry of aliens.

I do wish to emphasize, most strongly,
that we are not to labor under the illu¬
sion that this bill will accomplish that
purpose.

The immigration of aliens, legally or
illegally, into this country is a national
problem and a major one. It is no more
so in south Texas and the Southwest
than elsewhere. At times it is more evi¬
dent and more dramatic along our Mexi¬
can border.

To protect our borders, Mr. Speaker,
v/e must have more than a little black
ink on white paper. We must have a
working agreement based upon a thor¬
ough understanding of the problems, the
reasons for illegal entry and crossings.
It is a problem that cannot be solved
through an emotional approach nor can
prejudice and an appeal to class hatred
contribute to an intelligent solution. It
Is most unfortunate that from the top
down and on both sides of the border
too many people who have little or no
understanding of the problem or the
Issues involved have attempted to dic¬
tate the answer.

We should never lose sight of the basic
principle that it is the responsibility of
the Mexican and American Governments
to protect the border between these two
countries.

In this instance, as in many others,
the issue is clouded by the impractical
and unfounded conjectures of theorists
whose objective is social uplift. The
Mexican peon, unable to earn his sub¬
sistence in his own country, and thereby
compelled to sneak into the United
States, since that is the only practical
manner of effecting entry, has no social
problem which he recognizes as such.
His is a problem of survival. He is not
so interested in his civil rights as in the
contents of his cook pot. True, all of us
would like to see him able to live under
more comfortable circumstances, but in
the path of that high objective lie many
obstacles. With the best of motives,
those of us who do not take the trouble
to view the problem through the eyes
of the man who is confronted with it,
are apt to find ourselves, in the position
of the elephant in the old fable who,
having stepped upon a mother quail, de¬
cided to make amends by taking her
place on her nest of eggs. Seeking to
solve a problem we do not understand,
we are likely to produce disastrous re¬
sults.

The Mexican national comes to this
country seeking work and food. He does
not seek wealth or an increase in his
standard of living. He seeks, rather, the
means of maintaining his own standard
of living. He looks with mistrust upon
that which is unfamiliar to him. His
wife would not trade, for example, her
method of building a fire in a hole in the

ground, putting in a pot of frijole beans
and burying the whole thing to cook all
day while she is at work in the fields, for
a modern electric range. Hers is the
time-honored, familiar way, and inci¬
dentally, the beans are delicious. The
impracticability of giving the Mexican
national more than he seeks is particu¬
larly evident to those who have at¬
tempted to work them and have found
that the first time the “bracero” found
a few extra dollars in his pocket he was
on his way back to Mexico to buy food
for members of his family he had left
behind.

There is another feature to this prob¬
lem about which I think there should
be no question. The ranchers and farm¬
ers of the southwestern portion of the
United States should not be burdened
with responsibilities in which the Gov¬
ernments of Mexico and the United
have failed. We cannot rightfully be
charged with the responsibility of polic¬
ing the border, ascertaining the national
origin of people in our area, or rounding
up illegal immigrants. This does not
presuppose a lack of interest in the mat¬
ter or a lack of willingness on our part
to cooperate with officers of the Govern¬
ment. We do repudiate the false infer¬
ence that we entice Mexican nationals
into this country, harbor them, hide
them, and abuse them. There may be
instances of such things, but they are
rare and they are the exception.

The truth of the matter is that farm¬
ers and ranchers of the United States
would much prefer American nationals,
if they were available, for they are more
skilled, more steady and more depend¬
able, and they create much less difficulty.

The provisions of this legislation deal¬
ing with search and seizure are, it seems
to many of us, so foreign to our well-
established judicial process as to be dan¬
gerous. So far as I know, no rancher or
farmer has refused or will refuse to per¬
mit any border patrolman access to his
land in the performance of his official
duty. The people of our' part of the
country love their land, their ranches,
and their farms and they take great
pride in the operation and development
of them. Their lands are indeed their
kingdoms, small or large, and they want
to be sure that they have something to
say about who comes trampling over
them.

Mr. Speaker, the reasons which com¬
pel so many Mexican nationals to come
into this country illegally create another
danger and a burden peculiar to the bor¬
der areas. The “braceros” do not come
down the highway in cars and busses,
and seldom do they come in trucks. They
slip across, taking refuge in the brush
of the large ranches along the border.

As hungry, hunted men in a strange
land they constitute a distinct menace
to the property and stock of these
ranchers. Either the rancher must pro¬
vide for them to be rounded up and fed,
or they will help themselves, slaughter¬
ing his cattle, using what they want. It
is not a matter of harboring them, but
of the landowners protecting themselves.
As any experienced border patrolman
will verify, this practical, realistic ap¬
proach. to the problem simplifies their

February 25

task of rounding up the illegal entrants.
It saves thousands of dollars, both to the
Government and to the people along the
border.

And is this a cruel and unnatural at¬
titude? Whose responsibility is it to
protect the borders of a country from
illegal entry? What precaution does the
Mexican Government take to keep its
nationals from crossing the border il¬
legally? Does it warn them of the con¬
sequences? Does it set up road blocks
to keep thousands of its citizens from the
interior from moving northward? Does
it carry on any type of educational pro¬
gram to insist that immigrants cross
legally? I am afraid that instead it con¬
fines itself to demanding prohibitive and
unrealistic stipulations in its agreements
with this country on the employment of
Mexican nationals by our farmers and
ranchers.

And our own Government, what steps
have we taken other than running the
victims down and herding them into
court and back across the river? Have
we actually and intelligently attempted
to fact the problem realistically? I am
afraid we have not. We have spent bil¬
lions in Europe and yet we have taken
only a casual interest in the difficulties
of our southern neighbors. The two
governments have failed completely in
solving the problem of the wetback.

Mr. Speaker, it may seem strange to
some of you who are not plagued with
the problem we are now considering that
we raise so many questions when on the
face of it, the bill appears to be simple.
The bill is simple, but the forces that
come to bear in the negotiation of con¬
tracts between this country and Mexico
are not simple. The Secretary of Labor
has shown little understanding of our
problem and we cannot be proud of the
help we have had from the Department
of Agriculture and the Department of
State. Realizing this, you may have a
better understanding of our fear ot any
legislation which threatens our people
and our institutions. We think that we
are good Americans and, in fact, there
are no better, and yet we have been
given little voice in the determination of
issues which so vitally affect us.

The farmer and the rancher in the
southwestern part of the United States,
during the harvest season particularly,
must have seasonal labor. In the past
the agreements between our Govern¬
ment and Mexico have not been practi¬
cal agreements; they have not brought
over a legal type of Mexican labor. The
agreements are impractical; the matter
of soliciting for the employees has been
impractical; the method of dealing with
them and taking them back, and feeding
them, and housing them, and paying
them, has all been impractical.

Let me emphasize, Mr. Speaker, that
the people of my country do not want
cheap or illegal labor; but so long as
there is a vacuum which is created by a
need for seasonal workers, so long as so
many of the people of Mexico are hungry
and without jobs, and so long as we view
this problem as purely one of closing up
the border, then you are not going to ap¬
proach it with enough understanding to
solve it.

1952 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE

Mr. FISHER. .Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?

Mr. LYLE. I yield.

Mr. FISHER. As a matter of fact,
the real answer to the whole problem of
the so-called wetback situation is a
workable international agreement to
enable those people who want to work to
go where they are needed on this side
where there is a shortage of labor; let
them cross legally and be processed.

Mr. LYLE. It is just as simple as
that.

Mr. FISHER. That would eliminate
this wetback evil. Is that correct?

Mr. LYLE. Unquestionably.

I want to again impress upon you that
we do not want cheap, illegal labor in
the Southwest. We are able to pay the
going wage for any farm work or ranch
hand, worthy of the pay; but the fact
that you pass a bill and make it a felony
for somebody to transport somebody
else across the border, the fact that you
give the immigration people the right to
go upon all of the lands and search the
cars and trucks and vehicles—which so
far as I know they have been doing for
years—is not going to solye the problem.

Let me impress upon you that the jails
in the Southwest are full. You cannot
pass enough laws to fill up any more of
them because they are full already.
There is no problem catching them; that
is not the problem.

Mr. CELLER. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?

Mr. LYLE. I yield.

Mr. CELLER. I would like to call the
gentleman’s attention to the provisions
on page 3 of the bill to the effect that
the employing of a Mexican if he is here
legally shall not be deemed any wrong
whatsoever.

Mr. LYLE. I am familiar with that
and I am very pleased it is in there, be¬
cause the gentleman understands the
practical problems along the Southwest
that dictated that proviso. I am dis¬
cussing the fundamental reasons which
cause these Mexican nationals to come
here, and the lack of realism and fore¬
sight on our own part.

Mr. ELLSWORTH. Mr. Speaker, will
the gentleman yield?

Mr. LYLE. I yield to the gentleman
from Oregon.

Mr. ELLSWORTH. I wish the gen¬
tleman would clarify my mind on one
point. I am under the impression that
legislation we adopted last year, which
provided a method and a means of bring¬
ing these people over and employing
them particularly on farms, does pro¬
vide that they have to come into the
United States and work on a legal basis.

It is my impression this legislation is
merely the second step to do everything
we can in cooperation with the Mexican
Government to keep illegal entries down
to the minimum point. Is that some¬
where near a correct statement of the
situation?

Mr. LYLE. A correct statement is
this: I may say to the gentleman from
Oregon that we did pass a bill last year
and the two governments did enter into
a contract which, from the information

Nos. 27-28-10

I have available, was not a very practical
method of acquiring labor. But that has
expired. And the President of the
United States and the Mexican Govern¬
ment, so I am told by newspaper clip¬
pings,.have said that unless we pass this
bill or one very similar to it, certainly
one that meets their full approval, there
will be no further negotiations, there will
be no further agreements whereby we
may have the legal labor.

Mr. ELLSWORTH. In other words,
the bill we passed last year will not be
any longer in force since this agreement
has expired?

Mr. LYLE. Yes.

Mr. ELLSWORTH. So that there is
no provision at the moment for Mexican
nationals to come into the United States
and engage in farm labor, then return
when their job is done?

Mr. LYLE. The Mexican Govern¬
ment has said it will not further nego¬
tiate with our country these several con¬
tracts.

Mr. WALTER. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?

Mr. LYLE. I yield to the gentleman
from Pennsylvania.

Mr. WALTER. I would like to call
the gentleman’s attention to the fact
that the agreement has been extended
for a period of 90 days from February 11.

Mr. ELLSWORTH. Does that mean
that at the end of the extension there
must be additional legislation?

Mr. WALTER. No; there will have to
be another agreement.

Mr. LYLE. The President and the
Mexican Government have said they will
not negotiate further unless we do pass
legislation which meets their approval.

Mr. CELLER. That is correct. We
are told that unless this bill passes,
which would give Mexico the authority
to protect Mexican nationals coming into
the United States as migratory laborers,
it will not extend the agreement beyond
the period indicated by the gentleman
from Pennsylvania.

Mr. LYLE. This bill does nothing to
prevent illegal immigration from Mexico,
it has nothing to do with that. It was
simply a threat by our own Government
and the Mexican Government that you
either pass this legislation or you will
get nothing. I do not like to legislate
under those circumstances. I have no
quarrel with the principles of this bill,
it being that people who illegally bring
aliens into this country ought to be
prosecuted and ought to be put in jail.

Mr. CELLER. Of course, this bill not
only affects those who come in by way
of the Mexican border, it affects aliens
illegally here who come in from any
point beyond the United States.

Mr. LYLE. This bill was brought up
for one purpose at this time and one
purpose only, and the gentleman knows
it and I know it. That is because the
President of the United States and the
Mexican Government have said that if
we do not pass it during the 90-day pe¬
riod there would be no further negotia¬
tion.

Mr. CELLER. It is applicable to all
aliens.

1367

Mr. LYLE. You have an omnibus bill
pending.

Mr. CELLER. It is in that omnibus
bill, too.

Mr. LYLE. But the rest of the bill is
not before the House.

Mr. CELLER. The omnibus bill is
practically the same as this bill, with a
few exceptions.

Mr. LYLE. It is a hundred or more
pages.

Mr. CELLER. The omnibus bill con¬
tains many provisions, of which one is
this so-called illegal alien bill and we
simply said that since the Senate passed
this bill, the illegal entry bill, then we
would accept the Senate bill.

Mr. MORANO. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?

Mr. LYLE. I yield to the gentleman
from Connecticut.

Mr. MORANO. Can the gentleman
tell me what the penalty now is for har¬
boring aliens who come into the coun¬
try?

Mr. CELLER. There are no penalties.
That is the trouble. That was the loop¬
hole. Harboring and concealing did not
involve any sanctions or penalties. In
order to enforce what we deem to be a
proper principle, namely, any alien who
comes in illegally and anyone who con¬
ceals or harbors him knowingly with
knowledge shall be guilty of a crime.

Mr. MORANO. What is the definition
of “harboring?” Suppose an illegal alien
from Central Europe came into the
United States and was living at the home
of a relative or friend.

Mr. CELLER. If that relative or
friend with all knowledge of the facts
harbors or shields or protects that alien
illegally he is afoul of the law.

Mr. MORANO. Do you not think
that is a bit severe for people? There
might be a twilight zone in whether or
not you are harboring one of these peo¬
ple.

Mr. LYLE. There will be 2 hours to
discuss the provisions of this bill. I
want to get this clear because there has
been so much misinformation and mis¬
statement about it.

I want this to be clear: That Texas
and the people from Texas and the Con¬
gressmen from Texas are not fighting
those provisions about which you speak.
They want you to be practical about the
problem that faces American agriculture,
not only in south Texas and in the
Southwest but all over the United States.
It may be difficult for you to find aliens
in New York or Pennsylvania or Maine
or some place like that. It is not diffi¬
cult to find them in south Texas, if they
are there. I can take you there and
show you jails full of them, because the
ranchers and the people themselves
gather them up and tell the immigra¬
tion officials they are there and to come
and get them. Now", if you want to meet
that problem, you cannot do it with this
legislation or this type of legislation or
any other compulsions which bring it
here at this time. It has got to be a far
more intelligent approach than so far
has been made.

1368

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE

Mr. COLE of New York. Mr. Speaker,
will the gentleman yield?

Mr. LYLE. I yield to the gentleman
from New York.

Mr. COLE of New York. I was about
to ask the gentleman what his recom¬
mendations would be? What is his opin¬
ion with respect to what should be done?

Mr. LYLE. Well, it would take me
some time, and I will just say briefly
that our Government and the Mexican
Government ought to recognize this
problem as we have discussed it here
today, and they ought to issue to those
who want to come into this country and
have sufficient funds to come in here
some type of pass to come in legally and
work under conditions like all other em¬
ployees work in the farm areas, without
going through all of the difficulties to
negotiate for several contracts, getting
them in gangs as they do today, to per¬
form farm work, which many of them
are not qualified to do. That would be
basically the suggestion I would make.

One of the great problems has been
that the people who have negotiated
these contracts have done so under pres¬
sure from the Department of Labor, the
American Federation of Labor, and the
CIO, not with farm groups, not with
farmers, but with elements who have
nothing to do with it and do not under¬
stand the problem. You cannot get a
man to work on your farm in south
Texas 10 miles of the border without the
O. K., I am told, of the Secretary of
Labor in Washington.

Mr. FISHER. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?

Mr. LYLE. I yield to the gentleman
from Texas.

Mr. FISHER. I think the gentleman
has very correctly expressed the atti¬
tude of many of us with respect to this
bill. Certainly I know, speaking for my¬
self, that it should be a criminal of¬
fense for anyone to conspire to bring
illegal aliens into this country. I do
think, if this bill develops, that there are
some provisions in here which are not
necessary from the standpoint of en¬
forcement of the law against illegal
aliens.

Mr. LYLE. I agree with the gentle¬
man.

Mr. FISHER. I think the gentleman
hit on a point that should not be over¬
looked, too, when he referred to the fact
that according to press reports the Pres¬
ident of Mexico has demanded that leg¬
islation of this character be written be¬
fore he would negotiate further with the
American representatives for another
agreement. I think we should be very
cautious in considering the contents of
any legislation brought here under those
conditions to see that it properly pro¬
tects American citizens against infringe¬
ment upon their constitutional rights.

Mr. LYLE. I agree with the gentle¬
man.

Mr. MORANO. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?

Mr. LYLE. I yield to the gentleman
from Connecticut.

Mr. MORANO. I would like to ask
the gentleman what objections did the
President of the United States have, as
well as the President of Mexico, specifi¬

cally to implementing the legislation
that we passed the last time?

Mr. LYLE. I do not know.

Mr. MORANO. The gentleman just
does not know?

Mr. LYLE. No.

Mr. MORANO. Is there not some way
of finding out what those objections are?
Mr. LYLE. I just do not know.

Mr. Speaker, under leave to insert ex¬
traneous material, I desire to place in
the Record the full text of the joint re¬
port of the Mexican agricultural organi¬
zations and the American Farm Bureau
Federation and the recommendations
of the labor conference held in Waco,
Tex., in January of this year, believing
that they will be helpful in the consider¬
ation of this measure:

Labor Report of January 12, 1952

Attached is the full text of the joint report
of the Mexican agricultural organizations
and the American Farm Bureau Federation
under date January 9, 1952. Also attached,
for your information, is a copy of the points
of view expressed by the representatives of
the Mexican organizations and a copy of the
points of view expressed by the representa¬
tives of the American Farm Bureau Federa¬
tion. Both of these points of view were ex¬
pressed prior to the agreement reached in
the joint report.

As a matter of background, certain repre¬
sentatives of the American Farm Bureau Fed¬
eration and representatives of the Mexican
agricultural organizations had previously
become acquainted during activity in the
International Federation of Agricultural
Producers. Ing. Alberto Salinas Ramos, pres¬
ident of the Associacion Nacional de Cose-
cheros of Mexico City, arranged for a con¬
ference of 3 day duration and invited the
American Farm Bureau Federation to send
a team to confer with them in the matter of
discussing the migratory labor problems as it
affects both Mexican farmers and farmers
within the United States The Farm Bureau
team was composed of R. E. Short, Arkansas;
George Wilsoh, California; Delmar Roberts,
New Mexico; Herbert Voorhees, New Jersey;
Matt Triggs of the administrative staff; and
myself. Ing. Salinas was joined by General
Breceda and Lie. Rafael Rosas of his own or¬
ganization and by Ing. Manuel Garcia Santi-
banez of the National Farmers Confedera¬
tion and by Senor Fernando Gonzalez Calder¬
on of the Cotton Producers Union of the
Mexican Republic, and who also represents
the National Confederation of Agricultural
Producers.

Official representatives of both Govern¬
ments sat in on all the negotiations, or talks,
as observers. Both Governments were kept
advised as to the progress of the negotiations
at all times by the respective farm organiza¬
tions. It is important to note that the joint
reports and the points of view expressed by
the respective organizations dealt with the
fundamental problem, leaving the details to
be worked out by the Government officials ad¬
ministering the program. It is significant 1^>
note that, while both parties expressed a
strong desire to end the illegal migration of
workers, there was no demand on the part of
either group for punitive or penalty legisla¬
tion with regard to the employment of ille¬
gals. As you will note, both groups are of the
expressed opinion that the most proper way
and expeditious way to prevent unauthor¬
ized or illegal migration of Mexican workers
into the United States is an orderly program
to permit legal entry of Mexican workers for
temporary farm work in the United States
and, of course, a continuing program which.
Is not interrupted and which is planned and
administered to the mutual interest of the
two nations and to the mutual responsibility
of both worker and employer.

February 25

It seems most important to the Mexican
delegation that recruitment in Mexico be
such that it will not throw the Mexican
farmers in direct competition with employ¬
ers of Mexican agriculture. The groups
agreed that this can be done by some care¬
ful planning to make sure that recruitment
is made in areas where there is a surplus
of farm workers or in other areas during the
time of year in which workers are not so
vitally needed for domestic production in
Mexico. 1 he Mexican delegation is most
anxious that we likewise help with their
problem by giving them, through our Gov¬
ernment, advance notice as to the number
of workers needed in the various months.
At this particular time there seems to be
very little chance of our being able to supply
the need for long-period workers—workers
which are semiskilled, such as tractor drivers
and cow punchers which we, you might say,
need from now on. The Mexican delegation
very frankly stated that they, too, desire
these skilled workers to return after they
have become somewhat adept in the opera¬
tion of mechanical equipment.

It is the consensus of the Farm Bureau
delegation that much was accomplished, in¬
asmuch as this was the first time that two
producers groups actually sat down to work
out fundamental agreement, based on the
mutual interests of both. In the past all
negotiations, all discussions have been be¬
tween the two Governments of Mexico and
the United States. It is my personal hope
that negotiations between the two Govern¬
ments will begin immediately to work out
a new international executive agreement
based on the fundamentals agreed to and
adhered to in the joint report and the points
of view in the two different groups expressed
here.

In the meantime, it is most important that
the Governments of the two countries ex¬
tend the agreement on ah interim basis to
provide for a continuity which seems to be
so important to both countries. These rec¬
ommendations have been made to both Gov¬
ernments. It remains to be seen whether
the Governments of the two countries will
accept the challenge and make use of the
agreements between the farmers of the two
nations as to fundamentals. If those in
charge of the administration of the program
sincerely want to carry out the wishes of
agriculture in the North American Conti¬
nent, we can certainly expect that they will
make use of the advice and counsel of the
heads of these organizations who spent so
much time in an effort—an honest effort—
to see the points of view of their neighbors
across the international boundary. There
now seems to be little doubt that a less com¬
plicated program can be administered. A
basis for understanding has been made. The
details of the operation shauld not be too
difficult.

C. B. Ray.

January 12, 1952.

Joint Report, Mexico, D. F., January 9, 1952

Recommendations of Conference of Rep¬
resentatives of Confederacion Nacional
Campesina, (National Farmers Confedera¬
tion), Asociacion Nacional de Cosecheros,
(National Harvesters’ Association), Confeder¬
acion Nacional de Productores Agricolas (Na¬
tional Confederation of Agricultural Pro¬
ducers), and American Farm Bureau Feder¬
ation, relative to the Employment of Mexi¬
can Farm Workers in the United States: .

1. Mexico and the United States have an
Important role to play in producing in¬
creased supplies of food and fiber needed to
maintain social and economic stability, to
improve standards of living, and to con¬
tribute to the economic mobilization of the
free nations of the world.

The Mexican organizations of agricultural
producers participating in this conference
uphold in principle the belief that funda-

1952

1369

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE

mental interests of Mexico for its agricultural
production does not make the exodus of agri¬
cultural workers advisable, but considering
the present world situation, they agree that
the migration of Mexican agricultural work¬
ers to the United States is a problem re¬
quiring the cooperation of the two free
countries in an endeavor to increase the
world supply of agricultural products by
means consistent with the fundamental
axioms of the United Nations Organization,
which are supported by the International
Federation of Agricultural Producers.

2. The need for farm workers in the United
States, intensified by an expanding industry
and military force, has inevitably created an
unauthorized and illegal migration of Mexi¬
can workers. It is our common objective to
replace this illegal migration by a practical,
orderly program to permit legal entry of
Mexican workers for temporary farm work
in the United States to the extent that this
is not prejudicial to the needs of the ex¬
panding agriculture of Mexico.

With the mutual cooperation of our two
countries in the development of an orderly
legal program we are certain that continued
progress may be made toward furthering the
employment in the United States of those
Mexican workers who have complied with the
migratory requirements of Mexico, with the
exclusion from such employment of those
who cross the border illegally.

3. Our respective agricultural organiza¬
tions will, in cooperation with appropriate
government agencies, endeavor to the maxi¬
mum extent to obtain and to exchange in¬
formation relative to the need for farm work¬
ers in the various areas of the United States,
the duration of the need in such areas, and
the availability of farm workers in the va¬
rious areas of Mexico; and will further en¬
deavor to improve the operation of the pro¬
gram by encouraging a cooperative attitude
and understanding of the program by em¬
ployers, workers, and officials of our two
Governments.

4. We recommend the development by the
appropriate Mexican and United States agen¬
cies of means to avoid congestion and delay
of workers at migratory and reception cen¬
ters and by such means to reduce unneces¬
sary expense incurred by workers while await¬
ing the completion of transportation ar¬
rangements at such centers.

5. The recruitment of farm workers should
be limited to those regions where, or during
periods when, no scarcity of workers exists,
with preferential attention to the temporary
migration of workers from densely populated
rural areas where excess agricultural workers
are available.

6. The development of a long-time,
smoothly operating program of maximum
mutual benefit to the people of Mexico and
the United States necessitates continuity of
administration. Periodic disruption of its
operation tremendously handicaps and de¬
fers the development of a satisfactory pro¬
gram best serving our mutual needs. We
therefore regard with concern the expiration
of the present agreement for the recruit¬
ment of Mexican farm workers on Febru¬
ary 11. If measures are not taken to permit
the continuation of the present program it
will result in hardship to many workers who
might otherwise be employed, unnecessary
costs to employers and workers, and mate¬
rial losses of production of essential farm
commodities. Each week of further delay
in renewal of the agreement will adversely
affect production. We urge early extension
of the agreement.

7. We recommend consideration of revi¬
sion of the workers’ contract to provide mu¬
tual responsibility of both parties for com¬
pliance with its obligations.

8. The paramount factor in the successful
future development of the program is the
cooperative attitude of officials of our two
Governments and of the workers and em¬

ployers Involved. This is something which
cannot be written into contracts or inter¬
national agreements. It arises out of a con¬
tinuity of program, good faith, and success¬
ful experience In its administration, consid¬
eration of mutual needs and understanding
of contractual obligations.

We pledge upon behalf of our respective
organizations cooperation in the develop¬
ment of a program which will satisfactorily
serve the interests of the people of Mexico
and the United States and improve the
world situation with respect to the supply
of essential foods and fibers.

These recommendations have been devel¬
oped by representatives of the National
Farmers Confederation, National Association
of Harvesters, National Confederation of
Agricultural Producers, Union of Cotton Pro¬
ducers, and American Farm Bureau Fed¬
eration.

For the agricultural producers of Mex¬
ico: National Farmers Confederation
(Confederacion Nacional Campesina),
by Ing. Manuel Garcia Santibanez,
representative; National Harvesters’
Association (Asociacion Nacional de
Cosecheros), by Ing. Alberto Salinas
Ramos, president; National Confeder¬
ation of Agricultural Producers (Con¬
federacion Nacional de Productores
Agricolas), by Fernando Gonzalez Cal¬
deron, president; Cotton Producers’
Union of Mexican Republic (Union de
Productores de Algodon de la Repub-
lica Mexicana), by Fernando Gonza¬
lez Calderon, representative. For the
American Farm Bureau Federation;
R. B. Short, vice president, American
Farm Bureau Federation; George Wil¬
son, president, California Farm Bu¬
reau Federation; Delmar Roberts,
president, New Mexico Farm Bureau
Federation; Herbert Voorhees, presi¬
dent, New Jersey Farm Bureau Fed¬
eration; C. B. Ray, representative,
Texas Farm Bureau Federation.

Points op View Expressed by Representa¬
tives op the National Farmers Associa¬
tion (Association Nacional de Coseche¬
ros) in Connection With the Migratory
Problems op Agricultural Workers, Mex¬
ico, D. F., January 7-9, 1952

1. The problem of the movement of agri¬
cultural workers between Mexico and the
United States should be considered as one
requiring the cooperation of two free coun¬
tries interested in increasing the production
of food products and prime materials, in ac¬
cordance with the fundamental axioms of
the United Nations Organization which is
sustained by the International Federation of
Agricultural Producers (Federacion Interna-
cional de Productores Agricolas).

2. The contracting and employment of
Mexican agricultural workers by agricultural¬
ists of the United States must be on a basis
of dealing exclusively with those workers
who have fulfilled the migratory require¬
ments of their native country, excluding
those who cross the border illegally.

3. On a basis of professional solidarity the
agricultural organizations of the United
States will inform the National Harvesters’
Association (Asociacion Nacional de Cose¬
cheros) as exactly as possible, through the
International Federation of Agricultural Pro¬
ducers or the American Farm Bureau Fed¬
eration, of the need for workers in the differ¬
ent production zones, and also give informa¬
tion as to the agricultural production zones
in which they will be employed and the dura¬
tion of said employment. The object of the
above is to permit the Mexican farmers to
plan their work with relation to the agricul¬
tural cycles pertaining to the preparation of
the land and the harvesting of the crops.

4. An easier contracting formula must be
found, avoiding agglomerations at the entry

and departure stations for agricultural work¬
ers, as well as the unnecessary expenses that
the workers themselves incur for their sup¬
port while without a Job for the time inter¬
val between the date of their presentation at
the stations and the departure to their des¬
tination.

5. The contracting of agricultural workers
must be limited to those States where no
scarcity of such workers exists, excluding, of
course, the northern States of the Republic
and others that have been converted Into
potential agricultural production zones, such
as Chiapas, Veracruz, Mexico, Puebla, and
Nayarit, giving preferential attention to the
temporary displacements of the largely pop¬
ulated rural areas where low-working condi¬
tions exist.

Points of View Expressed by Representa¬
tives of the American Farm Bureau

Federation, Mexico, D. F., January 7-9,

1952

Upon behalf of the American Farm Bureau
Federation the representatives of said federa¬
tion wish to express their appreciation to
the Mexican farm and business organizations
for the invitation to meet with you and the
opportunity of discussing the problems in¬
volved in the use of Mexican workers in
United States agriculture.

Pursuant to our preliminary discussions
and with the hope that a frank expression
of our viewpoints on the various problems
involved may help to create mutual under¬
standing, we would like to set forth our
comments and recommendations as follows:

1. World food situation: It is generally
appreciated that the current world food-
supply situation is most critical indeed. Al¬
though food production in the world has
been increasing in recent years, the world’s
population has been increasing even faster.
Many countries which once produced sub¬
stantial food surpluses to move into world
trade are no longer able to do so to the same
extent. The world food situation is an im¬
portant part of the endeavor to create more
stable economic and social conditions and
higher standards of living. In this endeavor
Mexico, the United States, and Canada have
an important role to play in supplying the
food and fibers needed to maintain social and
economic stability.

2. United States agricultural production:
In consideration of the important part that
food plays in economic mobilization of the
free nations of the world, the food and fiber
production goals established by the United
States Department of Agriculture for T952
exceed the 1951 goals substantially. They
represent the largest agricultural production
the United States has ever been called upon
to provide.

3. Farm-labor situation in the United
States: The expansion of the military forces
of the United States and the continued
movement of workers from agriculture to in¬
dustry have reduced the working population
in our agriculture to the lowest level in many
decades. United States agriculture is there¬
fore called upon to produce more agricul¬
tural products to meet our own needs and
the needs of other countries than at any
time in history with a small and constantly
declining farm-labor supply.

4. Mexican farm-labor program: The 1951
Mexican farm-labor program therefore filled
a very important gap in our agriculture. Its
importance is larger than the numerical
numbers of workers involved would indicate
because of their use at critical farm-labor
requirement periods. We believe that this
program has been of mutual benefit to the
people of both the United States and Mexico.
We are confident it has contributed sig¬
nificantly to the world’s supply of food and
fiber. It is appreciated that the use of Mexi¬
can workers in the United States must be
coordinated with the needs of Mexican farm¬
ers for the same workers, since Mexico too

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE

1370

Is called upon to make a greater contribution
to the world supply of agricultural products.

5. The problem of illegal entry: The need
for farm workers in the United States has in¬
evitably attracted large numbers of Mexican
workers who have migrated to the United
States without authorization. It is our com¬
mon objective to eliminate this illegal mi¬
gration. We do not believe that any program
should contemplate that there is any one
single measure which will eliminate such
illegal migration. We feel therj are a com¬
bination of measures which will attain this
objective, founded upon the continuation of
mutual confidence and cooperation between
the peoples and the Governments of Mexico
and the United States.

6. A legal program: We feel that the most
important measure to reduce the extent of
the illegal migration of Mexican workers is
the development out of our 1951 experience
of a cooperative program between our two
countries to provide an orderly legal proce¬
dure for meeting the need on both sides of
the border. We do not believe this program
can be evolved overnight, but is rather one
which can be achieved relatively soon as
experience in administration is accumulated.

7. The migratory-labor agreement: It is
our conviction that the development of a
long-time smoothly operating program of
maximum mutual benefit to the people of
both countries involves an element of con¬
tinuity. It is not possible to develop a satis¬
factory program if the program is subject to
constant change or if its operation is period¬
ically disrupted. Significant losses of ex¬
perience, disruption of administration, and
excessive costs are involved in such periodic
disruption. We therefore regard with great
concern the fact that the present agreement
is due to expire on February 11. Workers
are needed in some areas now and if they
are not made available, losses of 1952 pro¬
duction will be sustained. In other and
later areas farm operators are currently
making their production plans for 1952. Un¬
less they are provided assurance soon of an
adequate jupply of labor, the production of
cotton, vegetables, and of many other crops
with high labor requirements is going to be
significantly reduced. Each week of further
delay in renewal of the agreement will in¬
volve losses of food and fiber to meet our
domestic needs and foreign commitments.

8. Proposed legislation: We consider that
deferral of consideration relative to the re¬
newal or renegotiation of the agreement un¬
til additional legislation is approved by the
United States Congress will significantly
jeopardize production of essential foods and
fibers.

9. Contract: We earnestly recommend con¬
sideration by both Governments to revision
of the migrant labor agreement and the
worker contract to provide mutual responsi¬
bility by both parties to the contract for
compliance with its provisions.

10. Cooperation: Finally and perhaps most
Importantly we believe that the successful
future development of the farm worker pro¬
gram will depend primarily upon the co¬
operative attitude of officials in our two
Governments and of the workers and em¬
ployers involved. We do not believe this
cooperation is something which can be writ¬
ten into international agreements or con¬
tracts. It arises out of a continuity of pro¬
gram, a continuity of confidence, good faith,
and successful experience in administering
the program, and in broader understanding
and compliance with contactual obligations.
We would think it undesirable and harmful
to the successful development of the pro¬
gram to endeavor to correct every difficulty
and problem by refinement of the agree¬
ment and contract. While frequently ap¬
pearing to be desirable each such detailed
provisions eliminates flexibility and tends to
create other and frequently unanticipated
difficulties. Each additional restriction and

complication included in the contract tends
to make the legal program less desirable and
less successful, discourages the development
of a successful legal program, and reduces
acceptance of and cooperation with the pro¬
gram. The most satisfactory development
of the program can come only as the result
of the application of the principles set forth
above.

Labor Conference, Waco, Tex., January 16,
1952

No. 1: We recommend that the present
agreement between the Government of the
United States and Mexico concerning immi¬
grant labor, approved August 1951, including
farming, dairying, ranching and livestock,
and the processing of agricultural products
be extended to such a time until a perma¬
nent agreement be worked out between the
two countries despite the fact that the pres¬
ent agreement is unsatisfactory, too com¬
plex and practically unworkable.

No. 2: That we are opposed to any legis¬
lation which intrudes upon the constitu¬
tional right against search without a war¬
rant or any legislation which permits tres¬
pass on our farms and ranches.

Legislation establishing penalties for har¬
boring illegal aliens should include:

(1) A statement of congressional Intent,
In that the language of the law is not in¬
tended to apply to employment itself.

(2) A provision that the penalty provi¬
sions of the law with respect to transporting,
concealing, harboring, or shielding an illegal
alien from detection and other provisions of
the law shall apply only to those who know¬
ingly and with intent violate its provisions.

No. 3: It is our further recommendation
that any new contract between the Govern¬
ment of the United States and the Govern¬
ment of the Republic of Mexico be based
upon and given full recognition to the dec¬
laration of principles in the joint report of
the Mexican agriculture group and the agri¬
culture group of the United States, which
report is dated January 9, 1952.

It is of the fact that the existing contract
between Mexico and the United States would
expire February 11, 1952, and such expira¬
tion would result in a serious handicap to
American agricultural production. We,
therefore, recommend that the Congress and
all affected Government agencies take imme¬
diate action to give a hearing to all inter¬
ested parties that they may present their
views relative to this whole problem and
that a new contract between Mexico and
the United States be consummated without
delay.

No. 4: We commend the West Texas Cham¬
ber of Commerce for their foresight in call¬
ing this conference on the all-important
agriculture labor problem. In order to im¬
plement the agreements stated herein we
pledge a voluntary exchange of information
and progress reports one with the other.

(Mr. LYLE asked and was given per¬
mission to revise and extend his
remarks.)

Mr. ELLSWORTH. Mr. Speaker, the
rule making in order the consideration
of the bill (S. 1851) to assist in prevent¬
ing aliens from entering or remaining
in the United States illegally is now; be¬
fore us. I know of no objection to the
adoption of the rule.

The purpose of the bill is clearly stated
in the report of the committee, as fol¬
lows:

The purpose of the bill is to overcome a
deficiency in the present law by making it
an offense to harbor or conceal aliens who
have entered this country illegally, and to
strengthen the law generally in preventing
aliens from entering or remaining in the
United States illegally.

February 25

The rule calls for 2 hours of general
debate, and is the usual open rule.

Mr. Speaker, I know of no objection
to the rule on the part of the Rules Com¬
mittee members on the minority side,
and I have no further requests for time.
I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LYLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5
minutes to the gentleman from Texas
[Mr. BentsenI.

Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, this
felony bill on illegal aliens will not bring
to a halt the flow of wetbacks across the
Rio Grande. There are many reasons
why this is true.

There have been those columnists and
high Government officials, including the
Secretary of Labor, who have stated that
we discriminate against and abuse these
people. The facts are that we pay from
five to at least ten times more in wages
on this side of the Rio Grande than are
paid to these same laborers in Mexico,
and that we furnish them better housing
and living conditions than can be af¬
forded them on the Mexican side.

At the present time Mexico is suffering
a terrible drought. Press releases from
Mexico City show that over 10,000 farm¬
ers and their families are threatened
with starvation, because of their terrible
economic plight. These men are desper¬
ate in their desire to support themselves
and their families, and they will brave
gunfire, imprisonment, or any penaliz¬
ing Federal law to cross the border to
seek employment to support their fam¬
ilies. They have to come across if they
are to survive.

The employers in my district would
much prefer to employ legal labor in¬
stead of wetbacks. The employment of
wetbacks is highly impractical, because
just about the time they begin to har¬
vest the crops and are out there in the
fields, they are picked up by the border
patrol and therefore furnish a very un¬
stable labor supply.

First, I want to see local labor em¬
ployed wherever it is willing and able to
do the job, but I am aware that there
are those times at the peak of our harvest
when it is impossible to obtain a sufficient
supply of local labor to harvest the crops.
Under those conditions, I cannot believe
that either local labor or the employers
think those crops should rot in the field,
since they are needed for our own econ¬
omy and for the Nation’s defense efforts.

The logical solution to all of this prob¬
lem is a practical contract between the
United States and Mexico under which
the farmers of south Texas can operate.
We have legislation in the new omnibus
immigration bill that would take care of
it. It would give us a border-crossing
card similar to that of Canada, which
could be used w T hen the Government
finds we have jobs that cannot be filled
by citizen labor.

I have taken this up with the execu¬
tive department, and have been told that
we have no hopes of seeing it put into
effect so long as there is any chance of a
contract between the United States and
Mexico on labor, and, unfortunately, this
means one largely dictated on Mexican
terms.

The results are that we are stuck with
an impractical labor contract between

1952

1371

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE

the United States and Mexico. We find
today the Government of Mexico is dic¬
tating this legislation on the floor of
Congress, and demanding that we pass
this felony bill against our own citizens,
or they will not enter into a contract to
furnish labor.

Under the omnibus immigration bill,
with provisions for a border-crossing
card, we have a legal means of taking
this weapon and this coercion from
Mexico and recruiting the labor, but the
executive department refuses to utilize
it.

Many may wonder why we have this
inconsistency of people in Mexico des¬
perately needing employment, and the
dollars to support their families, while
at the same time the Government of
Mexico does its utmost to put limita¬
tions in the contract that make it im¬
practical, and to coerce the Congress
into passing this felony legislation on
its own citizens. The reasons are sim¬
ple—when you understand the make-up
of the Mexican Government. The farm¬
ers of northern Mexico want to keep their
labor on their own terms. They do not
want them to cross to our side of the
Rio Grande. Their reasons are personal
and selfish and do not consider the wel¬
fare of the employees. They know that
if Mexican citizens come over to this
side under the labor contract, we will
house them better than they are in
Mexico; we will provide them with a
more adequate diet; and we will give
them much higher wages and better
working conditions. They consider this
unfair competition and spoils their em¬
ployees.

These facts are all true of that area
of south Texas that some columnists
have maligned, and even the Secretary
of Labor criticized in his recent speech
in Texas.

I wish in all fairness and desire that
the complete story be made known, and
that the Secretary of Labor had not cho¬
sen just a few isolated instances of
abuses in our State, and condemned all
our people for what probably 2 percent
have done. The Secretary of Labor
should have, in the interest of fair play,
told what we have done in recent years
to improve the conditions of contract
labor in south Texas. The wages of
these employees in the last year have
been raised substantially. Better hous¬
ing has been provided, and those em¬
ployers who cooperate to this extent
should be given credit for it. Conditions
have been materially improved.

If "the Secretary of Labor really wants
to help solve the problem, he should
have devoted at least as much time try¬
ing to work out a practical labor con¬
tract between Mexico and the United
States as he has to castigating the peo¬
ple of Texas and working for the felony
legislation.

There are innumerable impracticali-
ties in the present bill which I have tak¬
en up with the Department of Labor,
and up to this day have had no assur¬
ance from them they will support any
of the modifications of the contract in
their negotiations with Mexico.

I shall enumerate just a few of the
more obvious impracticalities in the

present contract which makes it so diffi¬
cult to obtain an adequate supply of le¬
gal labor in times of local shortages of
labor and bumper crops:

First. By experience farmers have
found that many nondesirable employ¬
ees have been recruited by the Depart¬
ment of Labor in Mexico on the bracero
contract. Among those who have been
cleared by the Department for the pur¬
pose of farming have been found taxi¬
cab drivers, habitual drunkards, gam¬
blers, and others who refused to work at
assigned jobs and left immediately on
reaching the point where the work was
scheduled to begin.

An example is a recent bracero who,
on arriving at the place of employment,
told the farmer that he had no inten¬
tion of working on the contract—that
he was a banker in Mexico, and had
merely come on the trip because he
needed the vacation.

The results are that the farmer has
paid the Government processing costs of
$15 a person for each of these employ¬
ees, and immediately loses that amount
on each one who is found unsatisfactory
or refuses to carry out his contract.
The contract should provide that at no
additional cost to the employer that this
type employee should be replaced.

Second. Where the employee makes
the pretense of doing the job and then
defaults on the contract before it is
completed, the farmer should be pro¬
tected in that he should be allowed to
pay one-half of the processing fee on
obtaining the laborer, and the other half
on completion of the individual laborer’s
contract. In the event the Government
is unable to replace the man who skipped
out on his contract, then the farmer
should not be liable for the balance of
the processing fee.

Third. The Congress, in passing the
law enabling the contract between the
United States and Mexico, placed a
maximum cost on processing of such la¬
borers at $15 per person processed, such
cost to be paid by the farmers.

The Congress clearly stated this was
to be the maximum charge, and the
Executive Department immediately
availed themselves of the full maximum,
and charged the farmers $15. An ac¬
curate cost-accounting system concern¬
ing the cost of processing Mexican labor
by the Government should be made, and
the cost to the farmers for contracting
such labor should be reduced in con¬
formance to actual cost to the Govern¬
ment.

Fourth. Recontracting and resulting
transfer of workers between employers
should merely require a simple endorse¬
ment of the worker’s existing contract,
and therefore should be accomplished
at no additional cost to the new em¬
ployer. The'new employer should ac¬
cept and assume the responsibility stipu¬
lated in the worker’s contract and the
original employer should thereby be re¬
leased from such responsibility. The
transfer would, of course, be subject to
the approval of the USES and the Mexi¬
can representative.

Fifth. Aliens living in the United
States prior to August 1949 and having
lived there since that time should be

subject to contracting, and not disquali¬
fied by reason of voluntary departure to
Mexico for a short period.

Sixth. At the present time when a
farmer makes application for the em¬
ployment of such labor, the certifica¬
tion of need for labor beyond that avail¬
able in the area has to be accomplished
in Washington. It is fantastic that the
Labor Department is so jealous of its
Washington authority that it will not
delegate such authority at least to its
regional offices in order that processing
of such contracts could be materially ex¬
pedited. Many of these contract cer¬
tifications have taken at least 2 or 3
weeks before the processing was accom¬
plished, and such delays can be so mate¬
rial in the harvesting of agricultural
products that the certification can well
come through after the need for labor
has passed.

These are just a few of the needed re¬
forms in the present United States-
Mexico labor contract.

It is my hope that despite the dis¬
couragement I have received from the
Labor Department as to any commit¬
ment as to what they will support in
negotiations with Mexico, that by the
time the negotiations are started, they
will see fit to support these recom¬
mendations.

If they will only lend as much influ¬
ence to ironing out some of the im¬
practicalities of the contract as they
have exhibited in supporting this felony
legislation, I feel that great strides would
be made in improving the contract.

If they are'.really sincere in their ef¬
fort to stop the flow of illegal aliens, and
their desire is not merely an effort to
force on us a shortage of labor, then
they will lend every effort to work out
the real solution to the stopping of this
flow of illegal aliens across the Rio
Grande by giving us a practical labor
contract.

(Mr. BENTSEN asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re¬
marks.)

[Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan ad¬
dressed the House. His remarks will
appear hereafter in the Appendix.]

Mr. LYLE. Mr. Speaker, I move the
previous question.

The previous question was ordered.

The SPEAKER. The question is on
the resolution.

The resolution was agreed to.

Mr. CELLER. Mr. Speaker, I move
that the House resolve itself into the
Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union, for the consideration
of the bill (S. 1851) to assist in prevent¬
ing aliens from entering or remaining
in the United States illegally.

The SPEAKER. The question is on
the motion offered by the gentleman
from New York.

The motion was agreed to.

Accordingly the House resolved itself
into the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union, for the con¬
sideration of the bill S. 1851, with Mr.
Herlong in the chair.

The Clerk read the title of the bill.

By unanimous consent, the first read¬
ing of the bill was dispensed with.

1372 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE

Mr. CELLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield
10 minutes to the gentleman from Penn¬
sylvania [Mr. Walter],

Mr. WALTER. Mr. Chairman, it is
indeed unfortunate that the measure
under consideration has been described
as a wetback bill. Of course, that
was inevitable because the State of Texas
is a part of the Union, and the problem
of aliens illegally entering the United
States is there as well as elsewhere. But,
actually what this measure is designed
to do is to cure a deficiency in the funda¬
mental statute. Let me call your atten¬
tion to section 3 of the Immigration
Act of 1917. It reads as follows:

Sec. 8. That any person, including the
master, agent, owner, or consignee of any
vessel, who shall bring into or land in the
United States, by vessel or otherwise, or shall
attempt, by himself or through another, to
bring into or land in the United States, by
vessel or otherwise, or shall conceal or har¬
bor, or attempt to conceal or harbor, or
assist or abet another to conceal or harbor
in any place, including any building, ves¬
sel, railway car, conveyance, or vehicle, any
alien not duly admitted by an immigrant
inspector or not lawfully entitled to enter
or to reside within the United States under
the terms of this act, shall be deemed guilty
of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction
thereof shall be punished by a fine not ex¬
ceeding $2,000 and by imprisonment for a
term not exceeding 5 years, for each and
every alien so landed or brought in or at¬
tempted to be landed or brought in.

And, I ask you especially to note this
language: “for each and every alien so
landed or brought in or attempted to be
landed or brought in.”

So, Mr. Chairman, the language of the
act is dteficient in that it does not spell
out a punishment for harboring aliens
who are illegally in the United States.
It is in an attempt, and I am sure we
have done so, to cure this situation that
this measure is before the House today.
I would like to call your attention to a
part of a decision of the Supreme Court
involving the said section 8 of the 1917
act, in which the Court argues “if only
imperfect grammar stood in the way, the
construction might be accepted.”

Mr. WERDEL. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?

Mr. WALTER. I yield to the gentle¬
man from California.

Mr. WERDEL. I would like to ask the
gentleman if he does not believe it is
presently a crime to harbor an alien in
the United States.

Mr. WALTER. It is a crime to harbor
an alien in the United States, but there
is no punishment for it. It is because
of that situation that we feel this legis¬
lation is absolutely essential—not be¬
cause of the situation in Texas.

It seems to me that the problem in
Texas is a very simple one. It has been
worked out with respect to the borders
between the United States and Canada.
People pass freely back and forth across
the borders. There are 3,000,000 border
crossings each year between Detroit and
Windsor. People live in Canada and
work in Detroit, and vice versa. In the
New England States it is common prac¬
tice for the Canadian woodsmen to come
down into the New England States to cut
the trees. There is no problem there.
It seems to me that the problem in Texas

can be solved just as easily as it was else¬
where. I do not believe that the people
in Texas want to hire these aliens who
are here illegally. I am not impressed
with the argument that they want “wet¬
backs,” because they can pay them sub¬
standard wages. I do not believe that
that is the situation, but I want to call
your attention to one very important
fact, namely, that there is no immigra¬
tion quota for people born in Mexico.
So that no alien born in Mexico has any
trouble in coming into the United States
so long as he cresses the border legally
in compliance with the immigration
laws.

I would like to go just a step further
with this decision of the Supreme Court.
The Court said:

The Government in effect concedes that
in terms the section prescribed no penalty
for concealing or harboring. But it argues
that inclusion of them as offenses becomes
meaningless unless the penalty provision, in
spite of its wording, is construed to apply to
them as well as to bringing in or landing.
In other words, because Congress intended
to authorize punishment, but failed to do
so, probably as a result of oversight, we
should plug the hole in the statute.

The Supreme Court goes further to
say:

To do this would be to go very far indeed,
upon the sheer wording of the section. For
it would mean in effect that we would add
to the concluding clause the words which
the Government’s reading inserts, “and for
each and every alien so concealed or hat-
bored.” It is possible that Congress may
have intended this. But for more than one
reason we cannot be sure of that fact.

Quite obviously the Congress did in¬
tend that there should be a penalty for
harboring, but the language of the act
makes it impossible.

In this case, United States against
Evans, decided in 333 United States, the
entire question was thoroughly discussed.
We are not concerned with the problem
in Texas. What we are concerned with
are the thousands of aliens illegally in
the United States today. Last year a
subcommittee, consisting of Messrs.
Boggs of Delaware and Gossett, made an
investigation of the situation along the
Atlantic seaboard, 1 and reported that
there were over 200,000 aliens illegally
along that seaboard. That is the kind
of situation that we feel should be dealt
with, and it is impossible to do anything
about it if the real criminal is not pros¬
ecuted.

Some time ago a man in Florida was
sentenced to 38 years in the penitentiary
under another statute. He was engaged
in the racket of transporting subversives
into Florida from Cuba.

In order to get at that person who
could not be punished under this stat¬
ute, it was necessary for our Govern¬
ment officials actually to kidnap two co¬
conspirators from Cuba and bring them
to the United States where all three of
these people were prosecuted and the
real culprit sent to the penitentiary for
38 years.

Mr. PICKETT. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?

Mr. WALTER. I yield.

Mr. PICKETT. Up to this point the
gentleman has indicated that the only

February 25

reason for this legislation being on the
floor is to correct the hiatus in the law
under the Evans case decided in 1948.
He states accurately, of course, that it
is an offense to harbor an alien in the
United States, but the Evans case says
there is no penalty for it.

Mr. WALTER. The gentleman is cor¬
rect.

Mr. PICKETT. Are there other rea¬
sons why this bill is here? And if so,
what are they?

Mr. WALTER. Yes; there is another
reason: The provisions of S. 1851 are
quite similar to those contained in the
new omnibus immigration and natural¬
ization code. That code will be con¬
sidered, I hope, within the next few
weeks; but in the interim Senator Kil¬
gore and Senator Eastland worked out
this bill that we have under considera¬
tion in order to make certain that the
treaty between the United States and
Mexico with respect to seasonal labor be
renewed; and it was for that purpose
that these provisions are being consid¬
ered here today.

It is the intention of the Committee
on the Judiciary when the code is con¬
sidered and adopted—and I am sure it
will be—that this bill we are now con¬
sidering be repealed so that all immigra¬
tion and naturalization laws will for the
first time in a great many years be in
one volume.

In this connection I wish to point out
to the gentleman from Texas that the
Attorney General under the new code is
given ample authority to work out some
way to permit this seasonal labor to work
in the United States. What these em¬
ployers do not want, to do, of course, is
to guarantee that these laborers will
leave the country. That is one of the
reasons why there is opposition to this
bill. Today they work for a time in
Texas, then move on up into Colorado,
and then on across the country to Penn¬
sylvania where today they are engaged
in reconstructing many miles of track
of the Pennsylvania Railroad. They are
all illegally in the United States and, of
course, are competing with American
labor.

Mr. PICKETT. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield further at that
point?

Mr. WALTER. I yield.

Mr. PICKETT. This bill goes much
further than just correcting a legal hi¬
atus in the penalty provision. Would
the gentleman explain to the Committee
just how much further this bill does go?

Mr. WALTER. It does not go any
further than I have stated to be the fact;
and it does not go any further than the
Congress intended we should go when the
basic law was enacted, the law in which
there -was the oversight we are now try¬
ing to correct.

Mr. PICKETT. I have not said that
the gentleman has not made a correct
statement insofar as he has gone, and
I do not want to be so understood. Un¬
der the present law these offenses are
misdemeanors, if I understand the law;
the gentleman’s proposed bill would
make them felonies. Under the present
law we have certain requisites for arrest
with and without warrant; in this bill

1952

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE

1373

it is provided that the administrative
official may issue and execute warrants
under proper direction.

Mr. WALTER. That is'correct.

Mr. PICKETT. Then it does go fur¬
ther than present law, does it not?

Mr. WALTER. Insofar as spelling out
a felony rather than a misdemeanor,
which is simply in line with the pro¬
visions of the recently enacted title 18
of the United States Code, I want to
point out the fact that members of our
committee from the State of Texas had
no objection to that. The gentleman
from Texas [Mr. Wilson] very definitely
announced that it made no difference
whether it was a felony or a misde¬
meanor, for I assume that no Texas judge
would ever send anybody to jail; any¬
way, that is only my supposition.

Mr. CELLER. If the gentleman will
yield, the penalty is up to $2,000 and up
to 5 years in jail. The sentence could
be 1 day in jail and 1-cent fine.

Mr. PICKETT. Yes; but under this
proposed bill the penalty is not to exceed
$2,000 fine or more than 5 years in jail,
and makes it a felony.

Mr. WALTER. That is right, and it
is absolutely essential if we are to ade¬
quately deal with these racketeers who
are concealing aliens by the hundreds
all over the United States. That is the
crowd we are trying to do something
about. We are thinking in terms of the
man who sits back in the interior of the
United States where there is a big steel
mill and does no work, yet exacts a
tribute from people he is harboring and
concealing under the threat of exposing
them if they do not contribute to him.
That is the man we are thinking about.
We are thinking about the professional
gangster, if you please, who has hun¬
dreds of these people concealed in very
convenient places.

Mr. PICKETT. The point with me
still is that this bill goes much further
than to create a cure for the hiatus in
existing law, does it not?

Mr. WALTER. No; I do not think it
goes any further than the Congress in¬
tended to go.

Mr. PICKETT. I did not ask about
what the Congress intended. I asked
what the law is.

Mr. WALTER. Of course it does. It
provides a punishment where there is
none today.

Mr. PICKETT. It also provides for
searches beyond the 25-mile limitation
basis as you have in section 2.

Mr. WALTER. Yes.

Mr. PICKETT. It provides for the
issuance and execution of an adminis¬
trative warrant, which does not exist
under existing law?

.Mr. WALTER. That is correct.

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from Pennsylvania has ex¬
pired.

Mr. GRAHAM. I have one request for
15 minutes to speak out of order and if
there is no objection I will yield the 15
minutes at this time.

Mr. CELLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield
myself 12 minutes at this time.

Mr. Chairman, as has been wisely said
by the gentleman from Pennsylvania
[Mr. Walter], this bill is not intended

to get after those who desire to abide
by the law. It seeks to.get after those
who are endeavoring to entice innocent,
harmless Mexicans over the border to
harbor, to conceal them, and to exploit
them. You must remember that a wet¬
back, because of his illegal presence, is
exploitable. We want to get after those
who are exploiting the wetback. A wet¬
back is like a stray dog. He tries to be
agreeable, he will accept much ill treat¬
ment, at least up to the point where he
slinks away and tries his luck elsewhere.
He is often overcharged for what he buys
and underpaid for his work and is al¬
ways in fear of being deported.

The gentleman from Pennsylvania
spoke of racketeers. Let me read to you
briefly from the report on migratory
labor of the President’s Commission on
Migratory Labor :

Wetbacks who are without funds to pay
the smuggler for bringing them in or to pay
the trucker-contractor who furnish trans¬
portation and directiop from the boundary
to the farm are frequently sold from one
exploiter to the next. For example, the
smuggler will offer to bring a specified num¬
ber of wetbacks across the river for such
an amount as $10 or $15 per man. The
smuggler or boatman, with his party in tow,
will be met by the trucker-contractor who
wiU then buy the wetback party by paying
off the smuggler. The trucker-contractor in
turn will have a deal to deliver workers to
farm employers at an agreed-upon price per
head.

Those are the malefactors we want to
get after. We want to punish those who
exploit and oppress these illegals.

The so-called illegal is under jeopardy
of immediate deportation if caught. He
is usually a hungry individual. His need
of food and clothing is pressing. He is
a fugitive. He cannot protest no matter
how unjustly he is treated. The law op¬
erates against him not for him. There
are those who capitalize on this mis¬
fortune of the illegal. It is these of¬
fenders that we want to get after.

The farmers and ranchers are for the
most part decent and honorable people
and are not guilty of unfairness. But
there are some who exploit these illegals.
It is against them that the bill is aimed.

Now we know that as the result of
encouragement given to the farmers to
increase their farm productivity, to in¬
crease their cotton acreage, the citrus
fruit acreage, more laborers are re¬
quired. The crops must be harvested.
It is estimated that from 200,000 to 250,-
000 extra farm workers are needed dur¬
ing certain periods of the year when
these crops come to fruition. And, they
must be gathered; they cannot rot. We
must, therefore, help those on the border
States, like Texas, New Mexico, Arizona,
and California, to gather their crops in.
There are not enough American workers.
Therefore, in the wisdom of the Mexi¬
can authorities and the United States
authorities treaties have been entered in¬
to whereby Mexicans were encouraged to
come temporarily across the border and
to get employment to harvest these crops.
Because of the defects in the law these
exploiters, as explained before, these
smugglers, have, with utmost rapacity,
sought to enrich themselves by bring¬
ing in and enticing these Mexican la¬
borers without any degree of social re¬

sponsibility. They do not bother with
reference to customs patrol; they do not
bother with reference to health investi¬
gations; they do not bother with any of
the laws that are applicable at the bor¬
der.

What has happened? Numbers of
these Mexicans have come in who are
disease ridden. Look at the infant mor¬
tality tables in the counties along the
border. You would be astounded to see
how high these infant mortality tables
are along the border. There are no
health inspections of wet backs, coming
across the border. And, it is for the pur¬
pose of providing examinations to see
that these Mexicans abide by our health
requirements, to see that they abide by
our internal security requirements, to
see that they abide by our narcotic laws,
that we want this bill passed.

One of the dangers to health due to
wetbacks. Permit a quotation from the
report of the President’s Commission on
Migratory Labor:

The wetback undergoes no health or physi¬
cal examination as he illicitly enters the
United States. The bringing in of disease
and contagion cannot, therefore, be avoided.
Moreover, while he is here as an illegal alien,
the wetback will not ordinarily risk the
chance of apprehension by seeking medical
or health assistance. Reciprocally, the health
and medical service agencies that might
otherwise be ready to provide assistance for
residents will ordinarily be foreclosed to the
wetback, even if he were to seek aid, be¬
cause of residence ineligibility. This cir¬
cumstance does not arise with legal foreigners
for whom provision is made.

One of the most sensitive indicators of
the state of public health in any population
is the rate of infant mortality. This is de¬
fined as the number of deaths under 1 year
of age per 1,000 live births. For the United
States at large, this rate in 1948 was 32.
The State-wide average for Texas was 46.2;
for the 28 counties of Texas on or immedi¬
ately adjacent to the border, the average rate
was 79.5. In the three counties commonly
regarded as constituting the Lower Rio
Grande Valley, the infant mortality rates
were as follows:

Cameron_ 82. 5

Hidalgo_107. 2

Willacy..127. 6

The only other counties in Texas with in¬
fant mortality rates higher than the lowest
of the above are Brewster (86.4); Dimmit
(93.0); Maverick (83.1); and Reeves (96.3).
All of these counties are on the Mexican
border or immediately adjacent except Reeves
which is in Pecos Valley, lying in the nar¬
row strip of Texas between Mexico and New
Mexico.

New Mexico and Arizona both have high
rates of infant mortality, 70.1 and 56.4 re¬
spectively, but the infant death problem in
these areas is associated with large Indian
populations rather than with Mexican-
American people or with wetback traffic. In
California, the State-wide infant mortality
rate is 28.6 but the rate of 56.2 for the Im¬
perial Valley is almost double.

Dysentery, diarrhea, and enteritis loom
disproportionately large in the picture of
infant deaths. These are the diseases of
filth and insanitation. In California, the
State-wide average infant death rate from
diarrhea, enteritis, and dysentery is 1.8; for
Imperial County, it is 12.9. In both Texas
and California an overwhelming proportion
of infant deaths from these causes is known
to be in families of Mexican origin.

Why, it has been shown by this same
Commission on Migratory Labor that

1374

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE

February 25

some of these illegals have come in and
are possessed with all manner and kinds
of narcotics because there has been no
examination at the border. It has been
found that some of those who have come
in have violated our internal security
laws. Some were possessed of commu¬
nistic literature. Now, it is to stop those
kinds of practices, against which you and
I must inveigh; that we ask for this
provision so that the constituted au¬
thorities, the Health Service, the Immi¬
gration Service, the Customs Service,
can have a look at these aliens as they
enter. Unless these various departments
can inspect these aliens at the border,
our laws are easily violated. Our health,
our security, our well being are involved.

Mr. LYLE. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?

Mr. CELLER. I yield to the gentleman
from Texas.

Mr. LYLE. I want to call attention to
the fact that you have, in one block in
New Yoi’k City, more trouble with Com¬
munists than we have all over the South¬
west. That is not a very strong argu¬
ment, because most of these poor, illiter¬
ate, hungry Mexicans only want to work
a few days and get some food and go
back and feed their families and them¬
selves. That is the big problem.

Mr. CELLER. You take care of your
State. I will take care of mine. But of
course, I did not mean to talk about
Texas in particular. This bill is appli¬
cable all over the country. We have
many seamen who desert their ships and
lose themselves in the population of New
York. Only last week I read in the pub¬
lic prints of several hundred deserted
seamen who had been rounded up, and
this bill will be applicable not only to the
so-called wet-backs, but illegals all over
the country that seek to enter our shores
without satisfying the requirements of
law. Those who come in illegally
through the southern border, as was in¬
dicated, find their way up to the New
York sweat shops; they find their way
up to Michigan and all parts of the
country. All sections of our land are af¬
fected and. must be alerted to the dangers
threatening. Thus not only Texas or
California farmers are involved. It is
not only there interests that are affected.

I appeal to the ladies and gentlemen
from all States that this problem is going
to become increasingly difficult unless we
take steps now to step this illegal traffic.

Mr. FERNANDEZ. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?

Mr. CELLER. I yield to the gentleman
from New Mexico.

Mr. FERNANDEZ. I think this bill is
a very effective one, quite strong, but a
good bill. May I ask the gentleman this
question: A minute ago he said that the
report of the President’s Commission
stated these Mexicans came over to
work, peddling narcotics. I wish the
gentleman would advise me where I can
find that in the report.

Mr. CELLER. I will be glad to get the
gentleman the report.

Mr. FERNANDEZ. I have the report
but I ha've not been able to find anything
like that.

Mr. CELLER. The information rela¬
tive to narcotics is given before the Ap¬

propriations Subcommittee considering
the appropriations for the Narcotics Di¬
vision of the Treasury.

Mr. FERNANDEZ. If the gentleman
will yield further for an observation, as
I said, this is a good bill and I will vote
for it, but I do not think it is necessary
in order to pass this bill to excoriate here
on the floor those poor Mexican workers
and their families and the farmers who
employ them.

Mr. CELLER. No, I do not mean to
excoriate any Mexican workers. I said
at the inception of my remarks that it is
essential to bring these laborers in so
that the crops may be harvested. I do
not wish to center an attack on anybody
except the smuggler and the man who
tries to make money out of the misery
of some of these workers. That is what
I want to get after. Certainly we do not
want to get after the good people. It is
the bad at whom we aim our shafts.

Mr. LYLE. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?

Mr. CELLER. I yield to the gentle¬
man from Texas.

Mr. LYLE. We are not fighting the
bill the gentleman sponsors. As far as I
know, no one here is. We were trying
to show that the problem is such that
this approach can do very little to help
solve it. It is a much bigger problem
than simply to say that you have a fel¬
low here and there.

M. CELLER. The gentleman is a
very valuable member of this body. We
always welcomed his suggestions. We
would have embraced wholeheartedly
any suggestion that he had that might
have been better than the one offered.
We held extended hearings.

Mr. LYLE. I am sorry the Committee
on the Judiciary refused to permit me,
a Member of Congress, lo come before it
to discuss this bill.

Mr. CELLER. I have no recollection
of that refusal. I certainly have the
greatest respect for the gentleman from
Texas.

Mr. WALTER. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?

Mr. CELLER. I yield to the gentle¬
man from Pennsylvania.

M\ WALTER. The hearings on the
omnibus bill, the Code, which contains
this same language, were held over a pe¬
riod of 9 months. During that time we
heard anybody, whether or not a Mem¬
ber of Congress, who wanted to make a
statement on any of the provisions of
the Code.

Mr. MAHON. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?

Mr. CELLER. I yield to the gentle¬
man from Texas.

Mr. MAHON. Personally, I am op¬
posed to the illegal entry of aliens into
this country. We do have an agricul¬
tural labor problem in Texas and we
need large quantities of legal labor from
Mexico. Of course, insofar as possible,
we would like to have the assistance of
Mexican labor which has entered this
country legally.

One provision of the bill which dis¬
turbs me is shown on page 3, beginning
with line 22, the language as to admin¬
istrative search warrants. I am afraid
this sort of thing might be used to more
or less frighten away legal Mexican labor

that might be in this country. Some of
these people do not speak our language.
They do not understand all the problems
involved. The farmer often finds it dif¬
ficult to maintain stability when the
labor in his area is being more or less
harassed by Government agents. Would
it not be suitable to have an amendment
to this bill providing that searches should
be made only on the basis of search war¬
rants issued by a magistrate? That
would give us a little better protection
and be completely defensible, it seems
to me. I believe the gentleman would
think so too.

Mr. CELLER. Do you mean a magis¬
trate appointed by some State authority?

Mr. MAHON. It could be a Federal
magistrate.

Mr. CELLER. Does the gentleman
mean by a Federal magistrate?

Mr. MAHON. Some judge would issue
a search warrant rather than this ad¬
ministrative warrant.

Mr. CELLER. The committee very
carefully considered the suggestion that
the search warrant only be issued by a
United States district judge, but in many
States, and this bill is applicable
throughout the country, there is only one
United States district judge. He may
be very far away. Time often is of the
essence, and for that reason we have
adhered to the practice of allowing the
officer designated in this bill to issue the
warrant. There is nothing new in that.
We have at present a provision in our
immigration law permitting the Attor¬
ney General to issue a warrant of de¬
portation.

I want to say this to the gentleman—
I do not see why he has anything to
fear, because if you read on page 3, lines
1 to 4, you will find that anybody can
employ and can enter into an employ¬
ment arrangement without running afoul
of the law. For the purposes of this
section, employment including the usual
and normal practices incident to em¬
ployment shall not be deemed to consti¬
tute “harboring.” That seems to be a
pretty good saving clause so that farmers
need not worry, nd representatives of
farmers need not worry. If the farmer
employs and does that only, he is not
deliberately harboring or concealing for
an illegal purpose, and lie need not worry
about it.

Mr. MAHON. I agree with the gen¬
tleman that no one should harbor aliens
who are illegally in the country, and the
provision which the gentleman has cited,
as to the farmer being exempt from
blame, it seems to me, is a good provi¬
sion. My point was that agents without
search warrants issued by a judge, might
in their overzealousness have a tendency
to disturb the labor in an area, and
therefore might deprive the farmers of
the labor. It would not prove that the
farmer is guilty of any violation, but it
would disturb the labor, and after all
what the farmer wants is the labor.
Without a modification of the bill, it
would be difficult for some of us to sup¬
port it, though we approve many of the
provisions.

Mr. CELLER. That is a calculated
risk. We cannot have iron-clad perfect
legislation. I do not think the gentle-

1952 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE

man need worry about the provisions of
this bill in that regard.

Mr. JONES of Missouri. Mr. Chair¬
man, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CELLER. I yield.

Mr. JONES of Missouri. The gentle¬
man has said that there is only one dis¬
trict judge in the district, and that "he
might be several miles away. There is a
court of record in every one of those
communities to which they could go.

Mr. CELLER. I said some States have
only one Federal judge and he might be
far away when the warrant is needed.
But do you mean where they could go to

a ctafa inrisrp9

Mr. JONES of Missouri. To a State
court and get a search warrant. Yes;
any court of record could issue that war¬
rant.

Mr. CELLER. The rules of criminal
procedure do permit a search warrant to
be issued by a United States judge or a
State court of l'ecord judge or a United
States commissioner. But I wonder
whether you want a State court judge to
intervene in a case of this sort.

Mr. JONES of Missouri. May I ask the
gentleman this question: Under what cir¬
cumstances and in what cases do they
have these administrative warrants is¬
sued?

Mr. CELLER. The immigration law,
as at present permits the Attorney Gen¬
eral to issue warrants of deportation.
Section 19 of the act of 1917, as amend¬
ed, empowers the Attorney General to
issue a warrant without intevention of
the court.

Mr. PICKETT. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?

Mr. CELLER. I yield.

Mr. PICKETT. In connection with
the statement which the gentleman
made a moment ago that it would be
very unusual to permit a State judge or
a court of record of the State to exercise
jurisdiction in a Federal matter, let me
direct your attention to the fact that the
law now provides for it in the general
search warrant statute, and under the
rules, that a State judge or a State court
of record may issue the warrant.

Mr. CELLER. The gentleman is cor¬
rect but in a highly sensitive area, and
on a subject of this kind, I question
whether a State judge should issue a
warrant.

Mr. PICKETT. But, it is a matter of
questioning his judgment or whether he
should do it, rather than the fact that
that power does not now exist as a mat¬
ter of law in proper cases where search
warrants may issue in the first instance,
is that not correct?

Mr. CELLER. I think to allow a State
judge to become involved in a matter of
this sort might create a great deal of
confusion. However, it might be well to
canvass the matter further. I do not
wish to be arbitrary.

Mr. FISHER. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?

Mr. CELLER. I yield.

Mr. FISHER. Will the gentleman in¬
dicate for the Record under what con¬
stitutional authority, subsection C, on
page 2, is proposed?

Mr. CELLER. That is a very good
question. I will say that the “right of
castle” is preserved. A home, a dwel¬
ling cannot be searched without a war¬
rant. You will note that no right is
given to anybody connected with the Im¬
migration and Naturalization Service to
make any search in a dwelling or a habi¬
tation or a house where one lives. The
immigration inspector with warrant has
a right to go on a rknch—sometimes
those ranches are as large as a State—
and make search. So that it cannot be
stated under this bill, that where you
have a huge ranch, miles and miles in
extent, that the Immigration Service of¬
ficial cannot go on that land and make
a search because one’s home is invaded.
You would render the bill abortive if you
did not have a provision of this sort.
There have been reported cases where
in large areas—fenced in or otherwise—
on ranches of huge extent the inspectors
were barred. The ranch on which the
owner lived was deemed a “dwelling” or
“home”, and thus large and extensive as
it was it was impervious to search. To
call a ranch of huge dimensions a
“dwelling” is absurd. It has been held
that these huge ranches are like a
“man’s castle.” He cannot live in all
the places that might be deemed houses,
or habitations, on the ranch or planta¬
tion, yet he has been protected from
search; and there have been many in¬
stances where these “illegals” have been
concealed and harbored on these huge
ranches and large farms, and the immi¬
gration authorities were just helpless.
They could not even go into the gate.
The minute they entered the gate is was
deemed that they were violating the
“right of castle” of the ranch owner.

Mr. FISHER. I know the gentleman
is quite an authority on that, and I am
sure he has been there and knows all
about it, but perhaps the gentleman got
that information from the report he has
been reading. But wherever he got it, I
suggest that he dig a little further on his
facts. What article in the Constitution
do you rely upon as authority for sub¬
section C, the administrative search
warrant provision?

Mr. CELLER. There is nothing in the
Constitution which prevents this. There
is nothing which will proscribe it.

Mr. FISHER. Is there anything in the
Constitution referring to searches and
seizures; and if so, where is it?

Mr. CELLER. The Congress has a
right to pass all laws reasonable and
necessary to enforce statutes it passes.
Under that provision we have a light to
provide for search and seizure.

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from New York has again ex¬
pired.

Mr. CELLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield
myself two additional minutes.

Mr. FISHER. Will the gentleman
yield again?

Mr. CELLER. I yield.

Mr. FISHER. The gentleman said be¬
cause you are not, under the Constitu¬
tion, allowed to enter a man’s castle,
therefore you do not have general rights
to serve search warrants.

1375

Mr. CELLER. That is, a man’s home
is impervious to search, without a search
warrant.

Mr. FISHER. What article in the
Constitution contains that provision?

Mr. CELLER. I gave you the reason¬
ing a moment ago; that Congress has
the right to pass all necessary laws to
implement general statutes for the en¬
forcement of those statutes.

Mr. FISHER. Will the gentleman
yield to his colleague from Pennsylvania
who seems to have that information? I
would like to know the provision in the
Constitution that you are undertaking
to base this on.

Mr. CELLER. I just gave you the
answer.

Mr. WALTER. As a matter of inter¬
pretation of the Constitution, the only
thing in it with respect to this matter
is a prohibition against searches and
seizures.

Mr. FISHER. Unreasonable searches
and seizures.

Mr. WALTER. Unreasonable searches
and seizures. We felt that by using the
word “dwelling,” preventing the issu¬
ance of a search warrant of a dwelling,
it covers not only the place of residence
of the owner of the ranch but it covers
a rooming house or a boarding house or
any other habitation in which these em¬
ployees for the moment might be har¬
bored.

Mr. FISHER. In other words, it is
the fourth amendment to the Constitu¬
tion which is the authority for the issu¬
ance of search warrants, and it is under
that provision that this subsection C is
inserted in the bill. Is that correct?

Mr. WALTER. The gentleman has
not quite stated it correctly.

Mr. CELLER. That is not the situa¬
tion. The Constitution proscribes cer¬
tain searches and seizures. They can¬
not be unreasonable. There can be no
search of a home without warrant.
But that is not the basis for our putting
this provision in the act. We have gen¬
eral authority over immigration and nat¬
uralization, and we must provide for the
enforcement of laws we pass appertain¬
ing thereto. This is one of the enforce¬
ment provisions. We might pass gen¬
eral criminal laws, but if we do not im¬
plement those laws by provisions involv¬
ing sanctions, we get nowhere.

Mr. FISHER. I think I understand
the gentleman. His position is that he
does not have to look to the authority
for search and seizure under the Con¬
stitution but in cases where immigration
matters are involved he does not need
constitutional authority.

.Mr. CELLER. No; the gentleman
twists and looks upon what I have said
with a jaundiced eye. I did not say
that. The gentleman asked for it; he
is going to get it; I did not say any¬
thing of the sort that he implies. I
believe that this provision is entirely
constitutional, because the Congress has
the right to pass laws of this character
to carry out and implement the gen¬
eral authority we have over immigration
and naturalization. That is all that is

Nos. 27-28-11

1376 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— HOUSE February 25

involved here. We do not go beyond our
legal authority, because we do not pro¬
vide for unreasonable search and seiz¬
ure.

Mr. FISHER. That is the under¬
standing I had of the gentleman’s inter¬
pretation.

Mr. CELLER. The power of Congress
to legislate on immigration stems from
the sovereign authority of the United
States as a Nation; it also stems from the
constitutional power to regulate migra¬
tion of people, also from the power under
the Constitution to regulate commerce
with foreign nations. Every sovereign
nation has power, inherent in sover¬
eignty and essential to self-preservation,
to forbid entrance of foreigners within
its dominions, or to admit them only in
such cases and upon such conditions as
it may see fit to prescribe. Congress
may exclude aliens altogether or pre¬
scribe terms and conditions upon which
they may come into or remain in this
country.

The power and authority of the United
States, as an attribute of sovereignty,
either to prohibit or regulate immigra¬
tion of aliens are plenary and Congress
may choose such agencies as it pleases
to carry out whatever policy or rule of
exclusion it may adopt, and, so long as
such agencies do not transcend limits of
authority or abuse discretion reposed in
them, their judgment is not open to
challenge or review by courts.

It has been settled by repeated de¬
cision, that Congress has power to ex-,
elude any and all aliens from the United
States, to prescribe the terms and con¬
ditions on which they may come in or
on which they remain after having been
admitted, to establish the regulations for
deporting such aliens as have entered
in violation of law or who are here in
violation of law, and to commit the en¬
forcing of such laws and regulations to
executive officers.

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from New York has expired.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, we still
have no requests for time on this side
but I do not wish to relinquish my time
until opportunity has been given the
other side fully to develop their case.

Mr. JENKINS. I would like a couple
of minutes if the gentleman does not
mind.

Mr. CELLER. We have no further
requests for time.

Mr. GRAHAM. I yield such time as
he may desire to the gentleman from
Ohio [Mr. Jenkins],

Mi'. JENKINS. It is not my purpose
to take up very much time, but I would
like to see if we can clarify this matter
just a little. Ever since the adoption of
the general immigration laws back in
the twenties the problem of the wetbacks
coming into this country has been a very
serious one, but it has not been one that
involved much or serious criminality.
But I am sure that if it were not for the
fact that w r e did not want to impose a
quota on Canada we would have imposed
a. quota on Mexico and some of the other
Western Hemisphere countries. Those
who were responsible for the drafting
of the restrictions on to the immigration

law's did not want to impose quotas in
the Western Hemisphere, especially be¬
cause of our friendly relationship with
Canada. Now 7 , coming to the point, as
I understand, one of the purposes of the
bill is to provide a penalty for the unlaw¬
ful harboring of aliens. That will apply
up and dow'n both the Atlantic and the
Pacific coasts and the inland borders
between Canada and Mexico, and every
other place. I am a little surprised that
it has been overlooked for such a long
time. I think the oversight should be
corrected and this law be made to apply
along the east coast especially where so
many persons enter illegally from Eu¬
rope. These people coming from Mexico
are a different kind of aliens. They
have in the past been absorbed into our
body politic by the farmers of the
Southwest. They have been encouraged
to come to our country because they '
filled the need of the farmers and they
then took jobs with the railroads of the
country and lost themselves into our
citizenship.

Now I should like to ask the gentle¬
man from Pennsylvania, Judge Graham,
if it is not the purpose of this bill to
provide this penalty against that illegal
harboring and also to try and solve the
problem of the entry of those who may
cbme to assist the farmers in the South;
is that right?

Mr. GRAHAM. No, not the farmer;
there is no indictment against the-
farmer.

This bill is perfectly simple. It is to
apply to all our borders and applies
against every type of person who has
the intent of concealing or harboring
aliens. If he had such intent then he
would be guilty, but under the present
law if he left off at some point and some
other person harbored him then it is a
different situation altogether.

Mr. JENKINS. These Members of
Congress from the South and the deep
South especially have for years been
interested in this same proposition.
They want help with their farm work.
The story is always the same, and it has
a great deal of merit to it. But the
trouble is that the men who come in one
year to help the farmers fail to go back
but instead they become active residents
in our country and enjoy the privileges
of citizenship w r hen many of them could
not qualify as citizens.

Let me ask this: What have the im¬
migration authorities and the enforce¬
ment officers said before the gentleman’s
committee? Are they in favor of this
bill or not?

Mr. GRAHAM. Yes; they are. May
I explain further that in the "omnibus
immigration bill, to which reference has
been made, this w'hole situation is taken
care of. At the present time this agree¬
ment between the Mexican Government
and the United States Government will
be continued for 90 days from February
11. But the new law when passed will
not take effect for 6 months after its
enactment, and this interim period must
be covered by this legislation.

Mr. JENKINS. Then as I understand
what we are trying to do here today is
not to continue the program but to

bridge the matter over the end of the
90-day period and the beginning of the
taking effect of the omnibus law.

Mr. GRAHAM. That is right.

Mr. JENKINS. Then at the end of 90
days we are going to do just what we
have been doing; the time has expired,
and we are going to lengthen, as it were,
the law that we passed last year.

Mr. GRAHAM. And it is reenacted
in the omnibus bill and made perma¬
nent.

Mr. JENKINS. When we come to the
omnibus bill, w'hich I understand is very
important, I hope we may be allowed
sufficient time in which to consider it
fully. I understand it has taken a great
deal of the time of the gentleman’s com¬
mittee.

Mr. GRAHAM. Correct. We have
■worked over it for months and months.

Mr. JENKINS. I hope when we come
to consider this omnibus bill that you
talk about that it will be consistent with
the well recognized immigration policy
of the country which we established
about 30 years ago and that it will pro¬
tect our own country from many unde¬
sirables that have been flocking into our
country from all parts of the world. It
might be interesting to say that the
United States of America was the first
country that ever declared to the world
the proposition that as an incident of
sovereignty every nation had the right to
protect its own border. That is the
basis of our immiigration laws. We
have that right and we have always de¬
fended it well as far as the purposes of
Congress were concerned. The enforce¬
ment of the immigration laws was very
rigid until Mr. Roosevelt was elected
President. He permitted much laxity
with the result that there are at least 3,-
000,090 aliens illegally within our borders
now. I hope the new big omnibus bill
will be an important step forward and in
the right direction.

Mr. GRAHAM. I so hope.

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from Ohio has expired.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, I
yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Werdel],

Mr. WERDEL. Mr. Chairman, I de¬
sire to ask the chairman of the Judiciary
Committee a question or two. I have
ben trying to get the exact figures on
the number of native-born Mexicans in
my State. That is, people of Mexican
descent. I know it runs into the tens of
thousands.

I agree with the gentleman that we
should take some action in regard to
harboring illegal aliens; however, if this
bill is passed, I want to know from the
chairman of the committee, and would
like a direct answer, in regard to the
language on page 2 which says that the
consignee or person taking such action
knowing that the individual that he
takes the action for “is in the United
States in violation of law, and knowing
or having reasonable grounds to believe
that his last entry in to the United States
occurred less than 3 years prior thereto.”

I ask the gentleman so that the Record
may be clear in interpretation of our in¬
tent whether the gentleman believes the

1952

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE

1377

mere fact that an individual can only
speak the Spanish language will be in¬
terpreted or should be interpreted to be
reasonable grounds for believing?

Mr. CELLER. I think that matter
will be covered when we get the omnibus
bill before the House. There is a pro¬
vision in there providing, for example,
that those Mexicans who are in the
United States temporarily for purposes
of labor will have an identification card
with a picture on it and other marks of
identification so that the person who is
dealing with that individual could ab¬
solve himself from any violation of law
by saying that this man had an identi¬
fication card, “I looked at the card, the
picture was identical with the individual
before me and therefore I had a right to
assume he was in the country legally.”

Mr. WERDEL. If the gentleman will
permit, I still want a direct answer to the
question before this bill is passed. What
the gentleman has told me is that peo¬
ple who are the third or fourth gener¬
ation in my State, numbering 70,000 or
80,000, if we will assume that, are going
to have to carry cards around, and if
anyone who wants to employ them does
not ask for such card will have reason¬
able ground to believe, and having a rea¬
sonable ground to believe will thereby be
guilty of a felony, when the person who
is an illegal entrant is only guilty of a
misdemeanor?

I am pointing out to the gentleman
that we are putting language in this bill
that is going to make it inadvisable for
employers to employ 70,000 or 80,000
Mexicans who speak the Spanish langu¬
age only, and perhaps Chinese and many
others who speak only one language. I
think we should require actual knowl¬
edge of illegal entry.

Mr. GRAHAM. The burden will be
on the Government to prove it, though.

Mr. WERDEL. Of course, that is the
question in my mind. This is a crime
and the United States Government
should be enforcing the law against this
crime. This is an attempt here for some
purpose other than the enforcement of
a law against a crime, in my opinion.

Mr. CELLER. Does this not indicate
that the Government will have a rather
heavy burden to carry in order to get a
conviction? The Government must
show that the man had knowledge or
had reasonable ground to believe that
the last entry into the United States
occurred 3 years prior thereto.

Mr. WERDEL. No. I think if the
gentleman will permit me, you and I
agree in principle that if a man know¬
ingly is harboring an illegal alien he
should be convicted. I think that if he
has that knowledge he should be con¬
victed. I think any sound American
picked on a jury would so agree. Now I
think it is a different thing though to
say in the bill that someone can come
into your place of business or your
ranch and say, “This man cannot even
speak English. Do not tell me you do
not have reasonable grounds. You come
into court. You are charged with a
felony. It will cost you $25,000 to de¬
fend yourself.”

Mr. LYLE. Mr. Chairman, if the
gentleman will yield, in connection with

this discussion I want to call your at¬
tention to the tragedy that would occur
in the southwestern part of the United
States if you attempted to brand decent,
fine, good American people whose an¬
cestry is of the Mexican or the Latin
descent. You could not possibly set up
a system to carry cards to identify your¬
self. These boys have been dying for
America since the Alamo. They are
very fine people; they are great Ameri¬
can citizens. I went to Mexico recently
on an official trip to speak before a Mex¬
ican Chamber of Commerce across the
border, and several fine American-Latin
lads accompanied me there. As we
came back across the border the immi¬
gration officers said, “Where were you
born?” There were five or six of us in
the car and I said, “I was born in Wise
County, Tex.” One said, “I was born in
Guerra, Tex.” They did not question
me further, but they turned to’ a nice
little lad sitting by me and they said,
“Let me see your identification.” He
said, “I have no identification; I am an
American. I was born in America. I
have lived in America all of my life.
How shall I identify myself, simply be¬
cause my skin is a little darker than
yours, because I speak Spanish fluently?”
He, fortunately, speaks English better
than most of us. It would be most un¬
fortunate if any type of legislation put
a brand upon millions of people that are
as fine American citizens as exist in this
Chamber or anywhere else.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, if the
gentleman will yield, as a matter of fact,
from Windsor, Canada, coming across
the border, thousands of persons come
in each day and exhibit a card, and that
is all there is to it.

Mr. LYLE. Yes, but they are not
Americans.

Mr. GRAHAM. There are Americans
going back.

Mr. LYLE. Americans going back?

Mr. GRAHAM. Coming and going.
They exhibit a card.

Mr. LYLE. As a national of the coun¬
try in which they live. I do not carry
a card which says, “I am an American.”
The gentleman from New Mexico [Mr.
Fernandez] does not carry a card which
says, “I am an American.”

Mr. GRAHAM. But the gentleman is
not crossing the border every day.

Mr. LYLE. But I cross it often. Sup¬
pose they said to the gentleman from
New Mexico, “If it will not embarrass
you, sir, where were you born?” He
would say, “New Mexico.” They would
say, “Prove it.”

Mr. FERNANDEZ. Mr. Chairman, if
the gentleman will yield, I think there
is a slight misunderstanding here. The
gentleman on the other side of the aisle
is talking about one type of card, that
which might be required of legal en¬
trants. The gentleman on this side of
the aisle mentioned a card that might be
had which would show, if I understood,
that you were an American citizen. That
kind of card I would oppose. Of course,
that is not in this bill.

The reason I asked the gentleman to
yield was that I would like to ask a ques¬
tion of the gentleman from California.
What he is worried about is that provi¬

sion with respect to reasonable cause to
believe that a person is an illegal entrant
recently come to the United States, and
he is wondering whether or not the fact
that a person does not speak Spanish
would be considered as reasonable
grounds to believe that he was such an
illegal alien coming into the United
States within 3 years. My answer would
be no, because there are hundreds and
hundreds and hundreds of American cit¬
izens of Spanish descent who cannot
speak English, and therefore no court
would hold that the mere fact that a
person does not speak English and
speaks only Spanish would be reasonable
grounds to make him believe and to
charge him with notice that the person
in question was not an American citizen.
So you do not have to worry about that
part of it.

Mr. CELLER. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?

Mr. GRAHAM. I yield to the gentle¬
man from New York.

Mr. CELLER. Further amplifying
what the gentleman from New Mexico
has said, subsection 2 on page 2 is two-
edged in this sense, that the Govern¬
ment must prove, in order to establish
the existence of a crime, one, that the
person accused knew that the particu¬
lar wetback or illegal alien was in the
United States in violation of law, and
second, that he knew or had reasonable
ground to believe that the last entry of
that illegal alien into the United States
occurred less than 3 years prior thereto.
There are two conditions, two humps
that the Government must get over be¬
fore it can establish the commission of
any crime.

Mr. GRAHAM. There are three. The
last one is that he transports, or moves,
or attempts to transport or move, within
the United States by means of transpor¬
tation or otherwise, in furtherance of
such violation of law.

Mr. CELLER..- Correct. I think that
gives ample protection to the innocent
person.

Mr. WERDEL. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?

Mr. GRAHAM. I yield to the gentle¬
man from California.

Mr. WERDEL. I take it then that the
gentleman’s direct answer to the ques¬
tion & that before a person can be
charged with a crime under subsection 2
he must have actual knowledge of these
other things in conjunction with actual
knowledge that the person is an ille¬
gal alien?

Mr. CELLER. That is correct.

Mr. PHILLIPS. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?

Mr. GRAHAM. I yield to the gentle¬
man from California.

Mr. PHILLIPS. If I may have the at¬
tention of the gentleman from New Mex¬
ico [Mr. Fernandez], may I ask him as
one who lives very close to this situation
what he thinks the population is in the
area affected by the bill, the people who
came over the line many years ago w r ho
still speak Spanish, who came over into
the United States in the days when there
was no particular deterrent to entry?
Spanish-speaking people lived in our
area long before English-speaking people

1378

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE

February 25

got there. There are a great many peo¬
ple of Mexican descent speaking the
Spanish language who have married
American-born Spanish-speaking girls
and who have raised families and yet,
technically, under a bill of this kind, they
could be illegal residents. The people in
the East do not always understand the
difficulties involved in a bill like that. I
ask the gentleman from New Mexico if
that would not be a great difficulty in the
enforcement of any bill of this kind in
the area about which we are talking.

Mr. FERNANDEZ. Of course, partic¬
ularly in New Mexico, Texas, and Cali¬
fornia, there are thousands and thou¬
sands of Spanish-speaking people, some
of whom have been here for two or three
generations, but because they live way
up in the mountains where English is not
spoken they do not speak English. But
I think this bill is all right. I believe
there are sufficient safeguards so that no
hardship would indirectly result to such
American citizens. This is not like the
one we had before, where you could not
employ a person unless you knew he was
not an illegal alien. This bill permits
employment of those persons under the
provision about which we have been
speaking in the last few minutes. As to
those who are transporting them, I am
not too worried about them. The only
thing I am worried about is any provi¬
sion that would prohibit the employment
of these people, and thereby indirectly
also make it impossible for American cit¬
izens of Spanish descent.

Mr. CELLER. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?

Mr. GRAHAM. I yield to the gentle¬
man from New York.

Mr. CELLER. The gentleman is sat¬
isfied with the provision we have in there
which permits employment?

Mr. FERNANDEZ. Yes; I am satisfied
with the bill. As I said, I think every¬
body is agreed that this is a pretty fair
bill, though, of course, it could be
improved.

Mr. GRAHAM. May I inquire if any
gentlemen from Texas would like to be
heard at this time?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Fisher].

Mr. CELLER. Mr. Chairman, I also
yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas.

Mr. FISHER. Mr. Chairman, I appre¬
ciate the time that is so generously giv¬
en me by the chairman and the ranking
member of the Committee on the Judi¬
ciary.

I questioned the chairman of the com¬
mittee a few minutes ago about one pro¬
vision in this bill that has nothing to do
with the correction of the so-called Ev¬
ans decision, and that was the constitu¬
tional authority under which subsection
3, which authorizes and provides for ad¬
ministrative search warrants, was in¬
serted in the measure. I undertook in
my questions to find out under what
constitutional authority that was done,
and I have yet to find out.

Mr. WALTER. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?

Mr. FISHER. I yield.

Mr. WALTER. What prohibition is
In the constitution against the Congress

of the United States writing adequate
provisions to carry out its intention; and
in the absence of any prohibition, as a
matter of construction, the courts must
find that the Congress had the author¬
ity and the power to do that which was
done. I would like to ask the gentleman
from Texas where the prohibition is
against doing what the Committee on
the Judiciary proposes.

Mr. FISHER. If the gentleman is
looking for a limitation of his authority,
of course, I think the entire Congress is
supposed to operate within the frame¬
work of the Constitution, and not on the
basis of what might be specifically pro¬
hibited there. But, for that matter, the
fourth amendment to the Constitution,
if the gentleman will read it again, I
think expressly prohibits the very thing
that he undertakes to do in subsection 3,
and I think if he would read that, then
he would agree that there is plenty of au¬
thority for objecting to the alleged au¬
thority which he has been asserting as a
justification for the bill.

Mr. WALTER. On page 5 of the re¬
port accompanying the omnibus bill and,
of course, it is applicable, are cited 37
cases upholding the right of the Con¬
gress to do what we are proposing to do
here.

Mr. FISHER. I suggest to the gentle¬
man that there are a good many Su¬
preme Court decisions which I have had
occasion to read in the last few days
which he might do well to take a look at
before he falls into the error, which I
think he has fallen into.

Mr. MORRIS. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?

Mr. FISHER. I yield.

Mr. MORRIS. I am very much inter¬
ested in this discussion. I am not cer¬
tain that this provision in subsection C
would come within the purview of article
4 of the amendments to the Constitu¬
tion. I am not certain, and I am try¬
ing to find out if it does fall within it.
If so, then I think the gentleman’s posi¬
tion is eminently correct. I would like
to read it. It is very short. I would
like to read it so that we might examine
it. Here is what article 4 says:

The right of the people to be secure in
their persons, houses, papers, and effects
against unreasonable searches and seizures
shall not be violated, and no warrants shall
Issue, but upon probable cause, supported
cause, supported by oath or affirmation,
and particularly describing the place to be
searched and the persons or things to he
seized.

Now here is what the bill says:

When the Attorney General or any dis¬
trict director or any assistant district direc¬
tor of the Immigration and Naturalization
Service has information indicating a reason¬
able probability that in any designated
lands or other property aliens are illegally
within the United States, he may issue his
warrant—

And so forth. In other words, it says
that he may issue it upon information
indicating a reasonable probability, and
so forth. It would not seem to me to be
within the four corners of the provi¬
sions of the Constitution. One further
thought, if I may express it. I have had
some experience, as a great many other
Members have, as a lawyer, a judge, and

so on. Ordinarily, a warrant is issued by
a judicial officer after someone comes in
and makes a case, that is, a reasonable
showing, for the issuance of the warrant
under oath.

Mr. FISHER. I thank the gentleman
for his contribution. The gentleman has
caught the vice of this provision very
correctly, in my judgment.

Mr. MORRIS. I am not sure, but I
do want to raise that question.

Mr. FISHER. The gentleman raises
a question which is very pertinent to this
inquiry, and I am sure it will be gone
into further. The gentleman from Okla¬
homa is an eminent attorney, and I am
sure that he agrees with me that the
only authority for search warrants under
the Constitution is the fourth amend¬
ment to the Constitution. Is that not
correct?

Mr. MORRIS. I am a little perturbed.
I always thought that.

Mr. FISHER. I am wondering if we
are not learning something new about
the Constitution today.

Mr. MORRIS. The way it reads is
this:

The right of the people to be secure In
their persons, houses, papers, and effects—

This bill says “land,” and the question
is whether or not it is broad enough to
include land. I rather think so although
I am not certain.

Mr. CELLER. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?

Mr. FISHER. I yield.

Mr. CELLER. On the question of the
powers of Congress, the Constitution
provides as follows: In article I, sec¬
tion 1:

All legislative powers herein granted shall
be vested in the Congress of the United
States.

That is one provision. Then the Con¬
stitution goes on to say:

Congress shall have the power to regulate
commerce with foreign nations.

This bill refers to arrangements made
with Mexico.

Congress shall have the right to establish
uniform rules of naturalization.

Congress shall have the power concerning
immigration or importation of persons.

Then there is a basket clause which
provides as follows:

Congress shall have the power to make all
laws which shall be necessary and proper for
carrying into execution the foregoing powers,
and all other powers vested by this Con¬
stitution in the Government of the United
States or any department or office thereof.

That is an affirmative delegation of
power by the Constitution to this House
and the other body to pass a bill of
this kind.

Mr. FISHER. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?

Mr. FISHER. I yield to the gentle¬
man from Pennsylvania.

Mr. GRAHAM. One applies to search
and seizure in homes. The other is the
exclusion of those which this Nation
does not desire to have entered.

Mr. FISHER. I think the gentleman
will agree with me that the protection
of the citizen of the United States
against unreasonable searches and seiz-

1952 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE 1379

ures is provided in the fourth amend¬
ment to the Constitution. So therefore,
anything which we write in this bill
which authorizes an unreasonable search
or seizure is running counter to the
fourth amendment to the Constitution
and cannot be upheld on constitutional
grounds. It is a question of whether you
are getting into the field of unreasonable
searches and seizures, whether it is im¬
migration or narcotics or anything else.
If it does, then it runs counter to the
Constitution and the conditions laid
down under which warrants for searches
and seizures can be issued, as contained
in the fourth amendment to the Con¬
stitution.

Mr. CELLER. I believe there is a
ranch in one of the States, I think it is
Texas, that is 100 miles long on one side
and 100 miles long on the other side.
Would you say that the authorities
should not have the right to enter that
ranch at all?

Mr. FISHER. Apparently the gentle¬
man is completely in error in his esti¬
mation of our attitude on this question.
Of course, they should have a right to go
in there to search for narcotics or any¬
thing else. Let them get a legal search
warrant. In that case, I feel like the
father of the Republic of Texas, Sam
Houston, who when asked to circumvent
the Constitution said: “We are not going
to do that. If Texas is going to Hades,
let us do it according to law.” That is
what we want here. If they are going
to search, let them do it according to law
and the Constitution.

There will be amendments offered to
make this conform to the Constitution.
Let them go to a magistrate and get that
warrant, and let them go out and search
for those violations of the law. If they
are going to search, let them search for
it, but do it in the manner provided by
the Constitution.

Mr. Chairman, it is a rare thing that
one subject ever generates so much mis¬
information and so much false informa¬
tion as has the so-called wetback prob¬
lem. To those of us who live along the
Mexican border and who know the situa¬
tion fairly well, many of the fantastic
and distorted stories about the extent of
the wetback traffic, of alleged “exploita¬
tion,” and so forth are simply monstrous
jokes. We have heard some of them re¬
counted here today.

At the same time, I recognize that in
our fight against subversive aliens it is
proper that some law be enacted against
those who conspire to bring such illegal
aliens into this country.

But the bill before us today deals pri¬
marily with the wetbacks. There are
very few, if any, subversives among them.
If there were, they would not be found
working on farms and ranches. That is
the last place you would find them.

It is true, I am sure, that a number of
Mexican nationals come across the
border from Mexico from time to time for
the purpose of seeking employment.
They have been doing it for generations.
Their living standards in Mexico are low
and most of them have families to feed.
They cannot find work in Mexico, so some
of them wade the Rio Grande, become
lost in the vast numbers of Latin Ameri¬

cans on this side of the river, and go to
farms and ranches to seek employment.

There being an acute shortage of work¬
ers on this side, those people are often
able to find jobs. They get good wages,
sleep on good beds, eat good food, and
within a few months are able to accumu¬
late several hundred dollars which they
send or take back to their relatives in
Mexico. They do not remain in this
country very long, and invariably return
home periodically.

These people do not replace any
American workers. They do not upset
our economy in any way whatsoever. In¬
deed, they contribute considerably to our
economy because they enable crops to be
harvested that would otherwise go to
waste. They aid ranchmen in producing
sheep, cattle, Angora goats, mohair, and
wool. This helps to feed and clothe the
Nation.

OBJECTION TO USE OP MEXICAN WORKERS COMES
MOSTLY FROM LABOR UNIONS

So far as I have been able to deter¬
mine, most of the objections to the use
of Mexican labor on this side of the bor¬
der to meet the extreme acute labor
shortage, is coming from the radical ele¬
ment of our labor unions. The reason
for this is difficult to understand. There
are some who say these people oppose
the use of this imported labor because
the unions want to organize all farm and
ranch workers eventually, and they find
the aliens are not so easy to organize.
This radical crowd would much rather
see food rot in the fields than have un¬
organized foreign labor help harvest it,
even though there is no domestic labor
available. Yet that same crowd is for¬
ever howling about the high cost of liv¬
ing.

Mr. Chairman, so far as I know, all
farmers and all ranchmen want to em¬
ploy processed Mexican nationals—those
who are able to enter legally under the
terms of the labor agreement with Mex¬
ico. Every farm and livestock organi¬
zation in the country has urged a work¬
able agreement which would enable pro¬
ducers to go to processing centers and
contract for those workers. Under the
law no foreign worker can be employed
in a community unless and until the Sec¬
retary of Agriculture certifies that there
is inadequate local labor there to meet
the needs.

But unfortunately the agreement with
Mexico which has been in existence since
last summer has been so burdened with
restrictions and red tape, that it has
been an invitation to wetbacks to come
across illegally. I know one man—and
I can give you his name and address if
you want it—who traveled more than
3,000 miles in a desperate attempt to
process some Mexican workers to help
him on his farm and in his lamb feed¬
ing operations. He could not hire a man
locally at any price, and he was des¬
perate. But although he made trip after
trip to processing centers, the last ac¬
count. I had he had not obtained a
single worker.

The average wetback would naturally
prefer to be processed if he can be. He
knows that he is violating an American
law and may be imprisoned if he wades

across as a wetback. But he knows that
he will be violating no law if he comes
across legally through a processing sta¬
tion. So, of course, he prefers to be pro¬
cessed. And the employer naturally pre¬
fers that he be processed.

Moreover, the abuse of “blacklisting”
counties and individuals has made
legal employment difficult in some in¬
stances and has had the effect of en¬
couraging more wetbacks to come
across.

ranch work was excluded

Mr. Chairman, this whole program
seems to have gotten into the hands of
the labor politicians. This has been true
in Mexico and to a considerable extent
in this country the voice of labor agi¬
tators has gotten into the act. It has
been difficult and sometimes impossible
for employers, desperate for labor, to
employ a Mexican national, legally. Let
me give you ah example:

When the last labor agreement was
made with Mexico, to the surprise of all
concerned it was learned that the agree¬
ment expressly prohibited any of the
processed workers from doing any type
of ranch work while working in this
country.

Yet, the Nation’s principal breeding
place for sheep and Angora goats is along
the border, north of the Rio Grande.
And it is a great cattle producing area.
There are also large farming operations
in the same area. But, strangely
enough, the labor agreement last sum¬
mer expressly prohibited any of the
processed Mexicans from doing any kind
of ranch work. That was at a time
when the most acute labor shortage in
history existed in that area. A severe
drought was going on, vast feeding oper¬
ations were necessary, and the Govern¬
ment was calling for higher food and
fiber production.

The exclusion of ranch work from the
agreement meant that thousands of
Mexican nationals on the other side of
the border, accustomed only to ranch
work, were out of luck. They could no
longer be processed to do ranch work.
And the employers on this side who
needed them were out of luck. I assume
the Immigration Service is correct in
saying some of the workers waded the
river and sought employment on this
side.

So, Mr. Chairman, if there has been a
wetback problem during the past year,
let us put the major part of the blame
where it belongs—on the agreement with
Mexico that no Mexican national could
be processed and then do any type of
ranch work.

About the same time the Mexicans
were being forced to wade the river to
seek work, because they could no longer
come across legally and do ranch work,
the Immigration Service was on Capitol
Hill pleading for more funds to employ
more patrolmen to help stop wetbacks
from coming across.

I must point out, Mr. Chairman, that
after months of effort, we were able to
get some relief. Through the efforts of
Mr. Don Laren, in the Labor Depart¬
ment, and Dick Rubottom and Jack
Neal, in the State Department, the Mex-

1380

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE

February 25

lean Government finally in late Novem¬
ber agreed to vary the terms of the labor
agreement and allow their nationals who
were processed, to do ranch work. Those
gentlemen have been most helpful. But
this concession was made months after
the agreement was made in Mexico City.
And the concession has been weighted
with conditions and restrictions, even
requiring a different wage arrangement
than has been true with farm work.

We do not know what the next agree¬
ment with Mexico will contain in that
regard. We do not know if ranch work
will be included or not. We are hope¬
ful such work will be permitted, and we
have been given some assurances. Cer¬
tainly, it can be said that a major por¬
tions of the wetbacks who came into
this country during the past year came
here illegally simply because under the
labor agreement it was difficult or im¬
possible to be processed.

WETBACK BILL AS WRITTEN WOULD INFRINGE
UPON CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS

Mr. Chairman, the pending measure
is brought here under circumstances
which call for the most careful scrutiny.
Now that I have been given additional
time, I want to discuss another point or
two. In the first place, this bill is not
the product of a congressional commit¬
tee in the usual sense. It was inspired
and most of its contents written down
at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue,
and according to the press the Presi¬
dent of the Republic of Mexico also had
a hand in its contents. No hearings
were held even though many of us re¬
quested permission to be heard.

Therefore, while the bill contains some
desirable provisions to which very few
if any would object, it contains a few
very serious infringements upon consti¬
tutional rights which I cannot believe
this House will be a party to.

Let me discuss two of the objectionable
provisions for a moment. First, I refer
to subsection (c) which reads as follows:

(c) When the Attorney General or any
district director or assistant district director
of the Immigration and Naturalization Ser¬
vice has information indicating a reasonable
probability that in any designated lands or
other property aliens are illegally within the
United States, he may issue his warrant au¬
thorizing the immigration officer named
therein to go upon or within such designated
lands or other property other than a dwell¬
ing in which t^e warrant states there may
be aliens illegally within the United States,
for the purpose of interrogating such aliens
concerning their right to enter or to be or
remain in the United States. Such warrant
shall state therein the time of day or night
for its use and the period of its validity
which in no case shall be for more than 30
days.

Mr. Chairman, this provision should
be stricken from this bill or amended so
as to conform to the Constitution. It vi¬
olates article IV with respect to the pur¬
poses for which search warrants may be
issued. It is clear that the proposal
would constitute an infringement upon
the protection of the citizen against un¬
reasonable searches and seizures.

Let us examine article IV, which forms
the authority for the issuance of search
warrants, and then se.e how well it con¬
forms to the Constitution.

Article IV is as follows:

The right of the people to be secure In
their persons, houses, papers, and effects,
against unreasonable searches and seizures,
shall not be violated, and no warrants shall
issue, but upon probable cause, supported by
oath or affirmation, and particularly describ¬
ing the place to be searched, and the persons
or things to be seized.

SEARCH WARRANTS NOT ISSUABLE FOR FISHING
EXPEDITIONS

The Constitution does not authorize
search warrants for fishing expeditions.
It does not authorize search warrants to
go on people’s premises for the purpose
of interrogating people. The warrant
can issue only when the warrant de¬
scribes the “place to be searched, and the
person or things to be seized.”

Actually, what this subsection of the
pending bill undertakes to do is to auth¬
orize a search for the purpose of obtain¬
ing information upon which a search
warrant might be legally issued in the
first place. But the Constitution will not
allow that. It will not permit the issu¬
ance of an illegal search warrant for the
purpose of obtaining information which
might be sufficient to support the issu¬
ance of a legal search warrant. Yet
that is exactly what is attempted here.

If that sort of procedure should be
allowed, it is obvious that the protection
against unreasonable searches would be¬
come a mockery and a farce. Because if
search warrants can legally be author¬
ized for officers to travel with impunity
upon people’s private lands, without any¬
thing but a suspicion or a hunch to jus¬
tify the authority, then the Constitution
becomes wholly meaningless as a protec¬
tion against the sanctity, security, and
protection of private property.

In other words, the Constitution au¬
thorizes search warrants for the limited
purposes of seizing persons or things. It
does not authorize fishing expeditions.
It does not authorize searches for the
purpose of interrogating people.

UNREASONABLE SEARCHES ARE VICIOUS

Mr. Chairman, the right of protection
against unreasonable searches is one of
the most important in the Constitution,
and has always been so treated by the
courts—and usually by the Congress.
Let me quote very briefly from Mr. Jus¬
tice Bradley for the United States Su¬
preme Court in the case of Boyd v.
United States (116 U. S. 616) :

It is not the breaking of his doors * * *
that constitutes the essence of the offense;
but it is the invasion of his indefeasible
rights of personal security.

Again, in the case of United States V.
Borkowski (268 Fed. 408):

The proceedings upon search warrants
should be strictly legal, for there is not a de¬
scription of process known to the law, the
execution of which is more distressing to the
citizen. Perhaps there is none which incites
such intense feeling in consequence of its
humiliating and degrading effects. The ex¬
ecution of a search warrant is one of the
most drastic and offensive powers of gov¬
ernment.

ONLY MAGISTRATES SHOULD ISSUE SEARCH
WARRANTS

Mr. Chairman, there are other reasons
why this attempt by the executive
branch of the Government to break down

the rights of the people against unrea¬
sonable searches is unconstitutional.
Subsection (c) would permit administra¬
tive officers to issue search warrants to
their own subordinates. Imagine that.
The Congress is being asked by the exec¬
utive branch of the Government to give
authority to an administrative enforce¬
ment officer to issue his own search war¬
rants. And upon what ground or rea¬
son? Let me again direct your attention
to the wording of this provision, which,
I am informed, was not written on Capi¬
tol Hill:

When the Attorney General or any district
trict director or any assistant district direc¬
tor of the Immigration and Naturalization
Service has information indicating a reason¬
able probability that in any designated lands
or other property aliens are illegally within
the United States, he may issue his warrant.

Under this monstrous provision, if the
district director or his assistant has a
hunch, even a remote suspicion, that an
alien is at a given place, he can get a
fishing expedition warrant without even
basing it upon oath or affirmation. And
even though the warrant is presumably
in good faith, and contemplates an exist¬
ing violation in the form of an alien be¬
ing illegally at a described place, the law
would give the enforcement officer 30
days to get around to making the search;
Do you think it contemplates good faith?
Of course not. It is a brazen bid for a
blank check fishing expedition based
upon an alleged warrant that would be
contrary to practically every word and
syllable of the fourth amendment, and
would make a joke out of people’s pro¬
tection against unreasonable searches.

Search warrants can be legally issued
only in conformity with the Constitution.
Under that Constitution, the informa¬
tion upon which a warrant is issued must
be set forth, by “oath or affirmation” the
specific facts which may justify the is¬
suing official to judicially determine if
the grounds are adequate. And although
the fourth amendment does not state
that only judicial officers can issue
search warrants, that is clearly contem¬
plated.

Not long before the Constitution was
written a very famous case was decided
in England which dealt with the au¬
thority of the officer to issue a search
warrant when that officer held an ad¬
ministrative and not a judicial position
in the Government. In the case of Wilkes
against Wood, decided in 1763, a gen¬
eral search warrant was issued by the
Assistant Secretary of State, and Mr.
Wilkes resisted the authority.

There the warrant was issued under
the hand and seal of the Earl of Hali¬
fax, the Secretary of State, and in the
King’s name. Lord Chief Justice Pratt
in his famous opinion upheld Wilkes and
there assumed that unless the Earl was
classed as a member of the judiciary that
the warrant was improperly issued. It
was held that the earl as a Secretary of
State did not have the authority of a
magistrate.

Would it not be logical, Mr. Chairman,
to assume that since the fourth amend¬
ment called for a judicial determination
of a fact with respect to the sufficiency
of the probable cause, that it was con-

1952

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE

1381

templated that only a magistrate could
issue a search warrant?

Mr. Chairman, this is another instance
of an attempted encroachment upon
rights guaranteed to the citizens of the
land. If they want and need a search
warrant in order to enforce laws, let
them obtain it legally and in accordance
with the Constitution. The Supreme
Court warned against the danger of this
kind of infringement in the Boyd case,
in this language:

Illegitimate and unconstitutional practices
get their first footing * * * by silent

approaches and slight deviations from legal
modes of procedure. * * * It is the duty

of the courts to be watchful for the con¬
stitutional rights of the citizen, and against
any stealthy encroachments thereon.

RIGHT TO SEARCH WITHOUT WARRANT WITHIN

25 MILES OF BORDER IS BOTH UNNECESSARY

AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL

Mr. Chairman, there is another provi¬
sion in the pending bill that in my judg¬
ment runs afoul of the Constitution and
is wholly unnecessary. I refer to the
latter portion of the last provision in
the measure which authorizes immigra¬
tion officers, without any kind of warrant
or evidence of legal authority “within a
distance of 25 miles from any such ex¬
ternal boundary to have access to pri¬
vate lands, but not dwellings, for the
purpose of patroling the border to pre¬
vent the illegal entry of aliens into the
United States.”

It will be recalled that when the Im¬
migration Service wrote their original
bill on this subject, they gave themselves
this blank check authority to go on prop¬
erty and search, regardlers of the dis¬
tance from the border. But evidently
someone raised a question and they next
came up with the 25-mile language.

Mr. Chairman, the constitutional
rights of our citizens who happen to live
within 25 miles of a border are just as
sacred as those folks who live a thousand
miles away. Here is an attempt to ob¬
tain, by an act of Congress, a permanent
easement for all immigration officers in
this country to go on this large landed
area, in day or night, with or without
reason, and do it with absolute im¬
punity.

I think most of our immigration offi¬
cers are very decent men, but you know
and I know that a few unscrupulous men
get into any service.

There are many ranches in the border
area of the district I represent in Texas.
Sheep and goat raising is the principal
industry. Those of you who come from
sheep-raising areas know what I am
talking about when I tell you that just
driving through a pasture during the
lambing and kidding season may cause
considerable losses. The little new-born
lambs and kids often chase the car, run
wildly away, become separated from
their mothers, then become weak and
die. Therefore, most ranchmen keep
their gates locked during lambing sea¬
sons so not even their neighbors can go
in and run the risk of disturbing the
flocks.

Thus you can see the opportunity for
harrassment if an unscrupulous immi¬
gration officer—and as I have said, there
are a few and will always be—decides to
make life rough for a particular land¬

owner whose land happens to be within
25 miles of the Rio Grande. Yet, it is
proposed here to remove any restrictions
or any conditions, and let all immigra¬
tion officers go into or over any area
within 25 miles of a border, at all hours
of day or night, and do so day after day
if he so desires. And all this with im¬
punity so far as abuse of the privilege
or indiscretion are concerned.

OFFICERS ARE NOW PATROLLING BORDER

I have said the authority sought here
is both unconstitutional and unneces¬
sary. I think I have shown that it would
involve unreasonable searches and is,
therefore, unconstitutional. Now, let me
prove to you that it is not needed. Never
in my life, Mr. Chairman, have I heard
of an immigration officer having dif¬
ficulty in patrolling the Rio Grande—
and I have been living in that area all
my life. I am telling you tlys authority
they want is not for the purpose of pa¬
trolling the border. That is incidental.
They already have authority to patrol
the border. They now want a blank
check to go on people’s land, tear down
gates, fences, and so forth, if they are
so inclined, and to snoop and harass
if they are so inclined. It is a perpetual
blanket trespassing authority issued by
the Congress to hundreds of men, to go
on other people’s property as often as
they may desire, day or night, and with¬
out even bothering to obtain an arrest
or a search warrant.

There is patrol work going on all the
time up and down the Rio Grande in
Texas. Go down there and see for your¬
self. If you did you would vote to strike
this amendment out of this bill. As you
know, since 1946 the border has been
patrolled by men whose mission has been
to prevent the entry of livestock from
Mexico. Did Congress give authority to
these patrolmen to go on people’s land
in their patrol work? No; no such au¬
thority for such purposes was requested
because they already had ample au¬
thority for that purpose.

At the peak of the quarantine program
a force of 660 personnel was employed
on the Mexican border to prevent live¬
stock from coming across. It was the
fight against foot-and-mouth disease. I
recently asked Dr. B.'T. Simms, Chief of
the Bureau of Animal Industry, which
handled the quarantine, about the au¬
thority of border patrolmen in going on
people’s private lands along the river.
I felt confident they had the necessary
authority but I wanted this confirmed.
In his answer to me, dated February 8,
1952, Dr. Simms stated:

Some years ago when a question came up
concerning the authority for Bureau of Ani¬
mal Industry inspectors to enter private
property in patrolling the Mexican border,
we were advised that although there did not
appear to be any specific legislative authority
for the entry of our inspectors upon private
property for the purpose of patrolling the
border to enforce the foot-and-mouth dis¬
ease quarantine, when such entry is essential
to the carrying out of the quarantine, a po¬
sition of implied authority to enter exists.

Therefore, Mr. Chairman, it follows
that if border patrolmen have implied
authority to enter private lands in order
to enforce a quarantine against livestock

coming across the international bound¬
ary, immigration officers would have
similar implied authority to make rea¬
sonable entries for the purpose of en¬
forcing a quarantine against illegal
aliens coming across the same boundary
and immigration officers have been do¬
ing that very thing for a 100 years.

I repeat, the authority here requested
is not necessary, and it would give hun¬
dreds of officers absolute freedom to go
on people’s land with absolute impunity,
there to disturb livestock, to trespass,
snoop, and harrass if they were so in¬
clined. And we are asked to give such
officers a perpetual easement to go and
come as they may desire.

Mr. Chairman, I am wondering if other
Members of this House have heard, as
I have, the concern of the American peo¬
ple over the continuous delegation of
powers to Government agencies— pow¬
ers that are not really essential. Here
you have more of it, and here is a good
time to rebel against this wholesale ex¬
tension of powers that are simply not
justified and so far as enforcing the law
are concerned are absolutely unneces¬
sary.

In conclusion, I wish to thank the gen¬
tleman from New York [Mr. Celler] and
the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr.
Graham] for yielding me the additional
time in order that I could discuss in some
detail some of the objectionable provis¬
ions in the pending bill.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield
15 minutes to the gentlewoman from
New York [Mrs. St. George].

Mrs. ST. GEORGE. Mr. Chairman, I
ask unanimous consent to speak out of
order.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the request of the gentlewoman from
New York?

There was no objection.

Mrs. ST. GEORGE. Mr. Chairman, I
have asked for this time to call to the
attention of the House the hearings
which came out before the subcommittee
of the Committee on Appropriations un¬
der the chairmanship of the gentleman
from Virginia, Mr. J. Vaughan Gary,
These are the hearings in regard to the
Post Office Department. I am very sure
that I am not alone in saying when I was
home, and as I traveled over the country
and as other Members have traveled over
the country, we were more and more as¬
sailed with criticisms of the postal serv¬
ice. People at home sa* it has never been
so bad, and this is a rather difficult thing
to refute.

As a matter of fact, we have fewer
deliveries, business is being impeded, and
w'e also have given up the directory serv¬
ice completely, which is working a great
hardship in many localities. All of these
things are brought out in these hearings,
and many more. But the main point
is that if the Post Office Department is
going to run at a huge deficit, if it is go¬
ing to continue spending the taxpayers’
money as it is doing and as it is expected
it will continue to do, we have a right
to look into the way that Department
is run and to take very seriously some of
the testimony in this report and to make
up our minds that, if necessary, an in-

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE February 25

1382

vestigation into this Department will be
ordered also.

On page 3 of the report the Postmaster
General states that—

The unaudited postal deficit amounts to
$680,644,570 lor fiscal year 1951. Of this
amount, $129,600,000 is applicable to fiscal
years 1947 to 1950, leaving a deficit ol $551,-
044,570 chargeable to 1951 as compared with
a deficit of $590,183,842 chargeable to 1950.
The deficit for 1952 will amount to $768,-
008,261.

These are big figures and for that rea¬
son it is important that every possible
step be taken to increase the efficiency,
the honesty, and the streamlining of the
Post Office Department. The Postmas¬
ter General in his testimony, on page 5
of the report, states:

I am concerned with the large postal defi¬
cit, inasmuch as it must be paid out of the
general taxation. It has a direct bearing on
our economic life and is of great importance
when we are faced with the problem of
financing a vital defense program.

This is true, and we are indeed happy
that the Department recognizes it.

We are told that we must forego serv¬
ice that we have had for years so that
today our service does not compare with
that given in England, Canada, Belgium,
and almost every other first-class power.
In England the post office closed their
books for the year with a surplus of $32,-
280,000. There was some consterna¬
tion because this was $6,160,000 below
the profit of the preceding year. We
will be lucky if we end our fiscal year
with a deficit of over $500,000,000. In
England they have four and five deliv¬
eries a day in the business sections of
London and three in the residential sec¬
tions. We have only one delivery a day
in all residential areas, and two in the
business sections of our large cities.

It will be objected that England has a
much smaller area than our country and
that therefore the two cannot be com¬
pared. In reply to that it must not be
forgotten that England is the seat of the
far-flung British Commonwealth and
that the volume of mail and parcels go¬
ing through her post offices is very great
indeed.

It is frustrating and distressing to find
the Post Office Department unwilling to
accept suggestions for improvement,
notably those contained in the report of
the Hoover Commission. Yet that is
a fact and was also brought out again
in this report under the able Questioning
of our colleague, Congressman Canfield,
of New Jersey.

On page 77 the gentleman from New
Jersey [Mr. Canfield] quotes from a
speech of the Assistant Postmaster Gen¬
eral, the Honorable Walter Myers, in
which he ends a speech before some
postmasters in these terms:

Let those who daily prate about morality
wash their own dirty socks before they com¬
plain about the smell of other people’s feet.
There are none so blind as those who see
only red, none so deaf as those who only
hear what they want to hear, none so de¬
ceiving as those who pretend truth and talk
double, and none so obtuse as those who
palm off the smell of a dead rat in their own
tack yard for sweet violets, sweeter than

This is the usual red-herring ap¬
proach. Instead of making corrections
and improvements, the Department
merely stands around saying, “You’re
another,” or worse.

Mr. REES of Kansas. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentlewoman yield?

Mrs. ST. GEORGE. I yield to the gen¬
tleman from Kansas.

Mr. REES of Kansas. I would like to
have the gentlewoman tell us where that
statement was made. It sounds as if it
might have been made at some political
convention.

Mrs. ST. GEORGE. It was made be¬
fore a group of postmasters.

Mr. REES of Kansas. By an Assistant
Postmaster General?

Mi’S. ST. GEORGE. That is correct.

Recently the full light has been
turned upon the situation that came to
light in the Boston post office. Of this
scandal, for that is exactly what it is.
Assistant Postmaster General Burke,
said, and I quote again from the report:

The Boston case stands out as the most
aggravating case of its kind that we know of.

The Postmaster General read into the
hearings from the latest report that he
had on the Boston post office. The re¬
port states:

The United State attorney now has 36
presentation letters under consideration for
attention by the grand jury. Restitution in
the amount of $27,068 has been made to
date to a total of 187 employees. Now as a
result of these investigations 175 regular
classified employees have either been re¬
moved, resigned, or reduced. One hundred
and nineteen classified substitute employees
have either resigned, removed, or reduced.
There were 74 of those resigned and 33 were
removed. One thousand and four temporary
employees were dropped or removed or re¬
signed, affecting a total of 294 regular em¬
ployees and 1,005 temporary employees.

In other words, counting the regular
classified employees, and the classified
substitute employees and the temporary
employees, the total number who re¬
signed, were reduced or removed, as a
result of these investigations totaled
1,298. That, I submit, Mr. Chairman,
is a considerable number.

Mr. REES of Kansas. Will the gen¬
tlewoman also tell us about the penal¬
ties that were inflicted by reason of this
skullduggery that was going on up in
the Boston post office? How much were
they penalized? According to the figures
I have, only one so far has even been sent
to jail.

Mrs. ST. GEORGE. That is correct.
Only one was sent to jail. The others
got off with small fines. I t hink the gen¬
tleman will agree with me that the fines
were small in comparison with the
offenses.

Mr. REES of Kansas. The fines were
small. Only one of them went to jail
for a short period of time; is not that
correct?

Mrs. ST. GEORGE. That is correct.

I was also told off the record that this
scandal in Boston was going on so fla¬
grantly that on one occasion a gentle¬
man was stopped in his car and asked by
someone if he could give him a lift. This
individual said, “I am in a great hurry;

that is why I am stopping you.” My
friend said, “What is this great hurry?
Where are you going?” “Oh,” he said,
“I have to go down to the post office in
Boston. I am the guy that punches the
time clock.” That is a fine situation to
have discussed in that way.

The gentleman from New Jersey [Mr.
Canfield] also asked if it was true that
this skullduggery had been going on for
6, 7, or 8 years. To this the Postmaster
General replied that he did not think it
had been going on that long, but he did
not give any idea of how long it might
have been going on. It is obvious that it
had been going on for some time. It is
equally obvious that if there had been
a proper inspection service this scandal
could never have taken place in that
office.

Mr. REES of Kansas. Is it not true,
also, that if there had been proper su¬
pervisory service there, including the
postmaster and the supervisors working
with him, and if they had been attend¬
ing to then 1 business we might not have
had these scandals in this post office?

Mrs. ST. GEORGE. The gentleman
is entirely correct. In my judgment, if
they had had one good supervisor in that
office it would have been enough to pre¬
vent this situation from developing. I
am very sure it would have been.

Mr. Chairman, it would seem to me
that a thorough investigation of our
large post offices and of the general
workings of the Post Office Department
should be undertaken to reassure the
people of our country. It should also be
undertaken to safeguard and to uphold
the reputations of the many honest, pa¬
triotic, and hard-working postal employ¬
ees all over this land.

The great danger with these things is
that people are inclined to tar everyone
with the same brush. They are inclined
to think that because these things have
happened in some offices they happen
everywhere.

Those of us who have worked close to
the Post Office Department and close to
the postal employees know that this is
not the truth, and it is as important
for these people to be vindicated as for
the wrongdoers to be punished. It is
a fact that in many localities, the only
contact the people have with the Federal
Government is through the post office
and the local postal employees. For this
reason, this Department above all others
should be above reproach, and this De¬
partment should above all others wel¬
come an honest and straightforward in¬
vestigation. There are many things that
can be greatly improved such as super¬
vision of the leave programs, and the
overhauling of the policy with regard to
accumulated leave. There is a great deal
of skullduggery, to put it mildly, in the
accumulated-leave situation. I heard
about a case the other day where the
postmaster who was about to retire will
receive about $10,000 in accumulated-
leave salary. This should be corrected.
There also should be a very much-stricter
check on the inspection service through¬
out this whole Department. It is quite
obvious that if the inspection service
had been as it should be, as I said be-

1952

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE

1383

fore, you would not hear now of over
1,200 employees being removed or dis¬
charged from the Boston post office.

Mr. REES of Kansas. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentlewoman yield?

Mrs. ST. GEORGE. I yield.

Mr. REES of Kansas. Does not the
gentlewoman agree with me than in view
of the situation which has been called
to our attention in the Boston post office,
the whole thing ought to be investigated
from top to bottom, and not only find
out who committed these crimes, but
how they came about, and who is re¬
sponsible for them. _

Mrs. ST. GEORGE. That is my hope.
I agree with the gentleman, and I hope
that some such investigation will be put
into the works very soon. I think we
need it, and want it, and I also think
the Department itself would welcome it.
As long as the service is being curtailed
in the name of economy, and as long as
deficits of half a billion dollars or more
exist in the Department, and I believe
they will go on existing because, ap¬
parently, it is impossible to run this
Department in any other way, I think the
Post Office Department is in honor
bound and duty bound to put its house
as completely in order as it possibly can.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to take
this opportunity of commending the
members of the Gary subcommittee for
the very splendid job they did at these
hearings, and for releasing these hear¬
ings at this time. It will be very help¬
ful, especially to the department itself.
I, for one, am sure that the Postmaster
General will welcome the opportunity
to help all those in this country of ours
who want to see our Post Office Depart¬
ment the finest in the world. There is
every reason why it should be so.

Mr. REES of Kansas. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentlewoman yield?

Mrs. ST. GEORGE. I yield.

Mr. REES of Kansas. I agree with
the gentlewoman that the Members of
the House would do well to examine
carefully the hearings to which she has
called attention because I think we will
be in a better position to discuss the
appropriations of the Post Office Depart¬
ment at that time. I notice among
other things that the Postmaster Gen¬
eral, and I am in agreement with him in
this respect, advocates the repeal of that
10-percent monstrosity which got into
the bill which we passed not too long
ago. I hope that with the gentlewoman,
we will repeal that particular item when
the time comes.

Mrs. ST. GEORGE. I sincerely hops
so. It is indeed a monstrosity. I can¬
not imagine how it ever did get into
the bill, but since it is there, the sooner
it is repealed, the better.

Mr. LYLE. ' Mr. Chairman, if the gen¬
tlewoman from New York would yield,
may I inquire what this monstrosity is?
It is not by any means the very fine
amendment which I offered, is it?

Mrs. ST. GEORGE. No; I am afraid
the amendment came from the other
side of the aisle, I must tell the gentle¬
man from Texas, and it is in regard to
the sale of the 2-cent postal cards, mak¬
ing it necessary to pay an extra 10 per¬

cent when you are buying 50 post cards,
which at the present time works out in
such a way that people send their clerks
down to the Post Office to purchase 49
postal cards at a time, which, of course,
is only heaping work on an already over¬
worked department.

Mr. BROWNSON. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentlewoman yield?

Mrs. ST. GEORGE. I yield.

Mr. BROWNSON. I think the gen¬
tlewoman will also agree that we have
an obligation to the career workers to
conduct such an investigation to make
working conditions better for them for
there are thousands of loyal, patriotic
postal workers who have devoted their
lives to their careers in the department,
and who are now just sick at heart with
conditions that exist in their chosen
careers.

Mrs. ST. GEORGE. The gentleman is
entirely correct. I tried my best to
bring that out in my statement. I feel
very strongly that the postal employees
themselves want to see this investigation
brought about.

Mr. REES of Kansas. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentlewoman yield?

Mrs. ST. GEORGE. I yield to the
gentleman from Kansas.

Mr. REES of Kansas. In line with
the statement just made, I recall the
effort made by the distinguished gentle¬
woman from New York who now has the
floor during the Eightieth Congress in
an attempt to study the Post Office De¬
partment and to offer suggestions where¬
by it might be operated more efficiently.
Her services were most helpful. That
committee included the distinguished
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Lyle]; he
also took part in that study.

Mrs. ST. GEORGE. That is true.

Mr. REES of Kansas. And an effort
was made, as the gentlewoman just sug¬
gested, not only to find out what was
wrong but to offer some suggestions
whereby the Post Office Department
could be improved.

Mrs. ST. GEORGE. May I say to my
friend from Kansas that I will continue
those efforts even though they do not
always bear the fruit I would like to see
them bear.

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentlewoman from New York has again
expired.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, I have
no further requests for time on this side.

Mr. CELLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield
5 minutes to the gentleman from Cali¬
fornia [Mr. Holifield],

(Mr. HOLIFIELD asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re¬
marks.)

Mr. HOLIFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I am
interested in the bill before the House
today, S. 1851, because I ha'ppen to rep¬
resent a section of the city of Los An¬
geles and some of the surrounding terri¬
tory which probably has the greatest
concentration of Mexican-American
citizens in it of any area in the United
States of like size. I believe Los Angeles
has been called the second largest city
in Mexican-orlgin population in the
Western Hemisphere, next to Mexico
City. We have around 200,000 people in

our city and in the surrounding environs
who are of Mexican origin. We con¬
sider those people ethnologically as Cau¬
casians. We do not consider them as
being of a different race. We have a
great many Mexican-American citizens
and we also have many Mexican aliens.
Some of them are legally entered aliens,
and some of them are illegally entered
aliens. It is not pressing the point at
all to say that along with the influx of
these aliens they have brought many so¬
cial and economic problems to our com¬
munities in southern California. Par¬
ticularly is that true of the illegally en¬
tered Mexican aliens, because they come
across without any screening at all by
the immigration authorities, as to their
qualifications in any way, including their
condition of health. We have had many
cases where people who have come into
California illegally have brought diseases
with them, particularly tuberculosis. It
has presented quite a problem to our
county health authorities and to our im¬
migration authorities.

We have approximately 200 miles of
California-Mexico border line between
the two countries, and possibly four legal
ports of entry. Between those legal
ports of entry there are many hundreds
of miles of desert waste lands, which it is
impossible to patrol with oui - limited im¬
migration forces. Better prevention of
illegal entrants could be obtained if we
had more members of our immigration
and naturalization patrol on the border.
They are all overworked. It is true our
-police stockades in and near our ports of
entry are filled with illegal entrants. We
capture thousands of them every year
and we return them to Mexico at great
expense to the taxpayers. Other thou¬
sands, no doubt, come across the border
who are not apprehended.. Where a
problem exists I do not believe it is any
discrimination to screen more thorough¬
ly the people who are in the United
States of a certain recognizable racial
group. If a crime is committed by a
man driving a yellow Buick sedan and
he leaves the scene of the crime a broad¬
cast goes out from the police to stop all
Buicks of a yellow color of that particu¬
lar type, and good citizens are not dis¬
criminated against if they are asked to
show some sign of identification when
stopped. They are willing to undergo
this inconvenience in the interest of law
enforcement.

I think it is entirely possible to print
a simple card of identification which
might be carried by the people in those
areas where illegal entrants are com¬
monly found; it might be similar to a
social-security card; it might be any
other kind of identification card. We
do not consider it discrimination when a
traffic officer stops us and asks us to show
our passenger vehicle operating card; it
is a very common occurence. You pull
out your card and show it to him as a
matter of your own protection as well
as the protection of others. So I think
that the process of identification could
very easily be carried out in these areas
where we have the problem of appre¬
hending thousands and thousands of
these illegal entrants each year.

Nos. 27-28-12

1384

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE

February 25

There is another impact upon our
economy in California. It is absolutely
necessary for us in California to have
additional help at certain times of the
year for the harvesting of the tree crops
and what we call the row crops or stoop
crops. It is very hard to get our local
citizens to stoop all day long over a row
of lettuce or do some other type of agri¬
cultural work of that nature. So it is
necessary to have people who can and
will do work of that type, who do not
usually have as much skill as our other
local citizens. During the war and after
I supported all the agreements between
Mexico and the United States in regard
to getting these people into California,
Texas, and other places in the United
States. It is absolutely necessary that
we have them, and I think the best way
to protect both these people who come
in, and our own local citizens is to have
them under contract between the gov¬
ernments. I remember the days when
there was no such thing as Government
contracts, when the obtaining of Mexi¬
can labor rested upon individual labor
contracts; and I remember the great
abuses that occurred during that time,
much too numerous to mention. The
only way to do it I believe, and do it
right, is to do it by contract with and
between governments, and have Federal
policing to see that those ■ contracts are
complied with.

I want to compliment the Committee
on the Judiciary for bringing in this bill.
I believe that it will be a great improve¬
ment over the situation as it now exists.
I have no fear at all that it will bring
hardship to good citizens of Mexican
origin. It is not designed for that pur¬
pose; it is designed to protect both the
employers, labor, and the American citi¬
zens against illegal type of entrance into
our country and also against foreign
labor that might be taken advantage of
not by the majority of American em¬
ployers but those who are always cutting
corners in order to obtain an advantage.

I am for the bill and I hope it will
be passed.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield
10 minutes to the gentleman from Michi¬
gan [Mr. Hoffman].

(Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan asked
and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks and to speak out of
order.)

Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. Mr.
Chairman, as the President said in his
message on the state of the Union, this
is a year “in which politics plays a larger
part in our lives than usual”; there is
“the necessity for putting first things
first as we work together this year for
the good of our country.”

The present situation demands that
each of us must now think and act for
the protection of our own country.

OUR GOVERNMENT

Our Government—and concededly it
is the best yet devised—rests upon the
premise that it is a government of, by
and for the people. It will so remain
if, but only if, the people—you and I—.
participate actively in political cam¬
paigns.

Always some thoughtless, careless peo¬
ple, assuming unearned blessings would

continue without effort on their part,
have neglected their civic duty, let con¬
trol of their government be taken from
them. And—•

Always there have been—no doubt will
continue to be—selfish, ambitious, pro¬
fessional politicians, who, taking advan¬
tage of that neglect, seeking their own
ends, seize our Government, follow a
course which, in some degree, deprives
the people of their freedom and the
Nation of its security.

It is obvious that a continuation of
the incredible waste, extravagance, and
corruption in the administration, un¬
covered by conscientious Democrats as
well as by Republicans—which are now
apparent to all—will eventually impair
the ability of our Nation to defend it¬
self, destroy our standard of living—the
individual freedom and prosperity which
we have enjoyed—all of which we have
mistakenly assumed would continue
without effort on our part.

We cannot, indefinitely, under United
Nations or any other one-world group,
carry on the war in Korea, where we are
furnishing 95 percent of the fighting
men, have suffered 95 percent of the
casualties which number more than
103,000; where the Russian planes are
superior in both efficiency and number.

We cannot create and maintain in
Western Europe an army of two or more
million men when the support of the
French and other nations is lukewarm,
when Britain refuses to permit her
soldiers to be integrated into the army.

We cannot comply with France’s re¬
quest for dollars and men to fight in
Indochina.

We cannot agree to Britain’s plea for
aid in Malaya and Burma, or with her
demands that we send troops to support
her poistion in opposition to the Egyp¬
tians at the Suez; that we join her in,
if necessary, fighting in Iran.

We cannot continue to conscript our
men to fight in every war in which
United Nations—of which Russia is a
member—may become involved.

The foregoing things we cannot con¬
tinue to do without creating ruinous in¬
flation; without placing upon our own
people the restrictions and the burdens
which will destroy their freedom, their
standard of living; without, ultimately,
as a Nation, bleeding ourselves white;
destroying our ability not only to help
others, but to defend ourselves; without
making us an easy prey to communistic
doctrines and practices; eventually, con¬
quest by Russia.

OUR OPPORTUNITY

It is often said, opposition to the pres¬
ent domestic and foreign policy is not
enough. True. But putting out a fire
and cleaning up the site is necessary
before rebuilding can begin. Having
stopped the conflagration and cleared
the ground; having put an end to waste,
extravagance, corruption, arbitrary bu¬
reaucracy, then a sound, affirmative pro¬
gram, designed for the betterment and
preservation of our country can succeed.

Moreover, it is not true that a “no”
vote is no more than a negative vote.
In reality, a “no” vote is often an af¬
firmative vote implementing a positive,
aggressive policy.

A "no” vote against waste and incom¬
petency is, in reality, a “yes” vote for
economy and efficiency.

A "no” vote against corruption is an
affirmative vote for honesty.

A “no” vote against unjustifiable, ex¬
cessive aid to other countries is an af¬
firmative “yes” vote to preserve our own
ability to defend ourselves.

A vote against an unlimited grant of
arbitrary power to a public official is
a vote for the preservation of constitu¬
tional processes.

The “Thou shalt not” in every one of
the Ten Commandments is not just a
“no”—a negative—admonition. It is, in
effect, an affirmative, positive demand
that right conduct be followed.

So, what must we do to be saved,
and when will we have that opportunity?

If our political parties with sincerity
write clear, accurate statements of their
purpose, we will have the opportunity
at the November 1952 elections to de¬
termine the course which the Nation
should follow. We will, at the same time,
name the director of the policies we then
adopt.

WHAT AFFIRMATIVE PROGRAM DO I ADVOCATE?

On the domestic front, nothing new,
something old, but recently forgotten.
Just what I have always fought for—less
waste, less spending, more economy,
more efficiency, on the part of the Fed¬
eral Government and its employees.

Then, reorganization in the Federal
Government which will lessen, not in¬
crease, the number of Federal employees.
A reorganization which will call for the
same degree of service and efficiency that
would be required if privately employed.

In the transaction of the Govern¬
ment’s business, the same policies fol¬
lowed by the successful individual who
must, and who does, make both ends
meet.

Less interference by Federal agencies
in all civilian activities which can be
performed by the States, their municipal
subdivisions, or individuals.

Positive, aggressive action which will
return to the States the authority which
is rightfully theirs under the Constitu¬
tion and our former practices.

Abandonment of the Henry Wallace
idea that it is our duty to, without ef-
ford on their part, feed, clothe, and
house people everywhere until their
standard of living equals, or exceeds, our
own.

Absolute, unwavering loyalty and in¬
tegrity from every elected or appointed
public official.

ALL IMPORTANT

On foreign policy, the abandonment of
the theory that we can buy friendship.
Abandonment of the thought that it is
our duty, through the contribution of
billions of dollars and the conscripting of
millions of men, to, under some one-
world organization, participate in every
war, whenever, wherever7United Nations
or any similar organization may become
involved in war.

For ourselves and our country a for¬
eign policy similar to that advocated by
Churchill for the British Empire. A
policy followed by every other nation.
A policy which will best serve the inter¬
ests of our own country. Self-preserva-

1952

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE

1385

tion shapes the conduct of all other na¬
tions. It must of necessity determine our
policy if we are to continue a Nation.

The establishment, on the advice of a
group of men like Herbert Hoover, con-
cededly an authority on world eco¬
nomics; of men like General Mac Arthur,
a foremost military expert, of a frontier
from and on which we can, successfully
and with minimum loss, defend ourselves
from aggression, deter those who would
either, by propaganda, threat or force,
or force itself, imperil the freedom of our
people, the security of our country.

A small part of the billions which have
been wasted or stolen not only by our
own corrupt officials, but by those of
other nations, would create, train, and
adequately equip Armed Forces sufficient
to successfully meet and turn back ag¬
gressive action by any nation or group of
nations.

National defense, adequate to our need,
should be forthwith created and con¬
tinued.

ANYTHING MORE?

Certainly. The determination of a
policy, however sound, is ineffective un¬
less administered by men who will faith¬
fully translate it into action.

This raises the question as to who the
Democrats—the Republicans—should
nominate at their national conventions
in July.

Being a Republican, a suggestion from
me to our Democratic friends as to their
nominee is entirely out of place. None
will be made. Republicans have no
dearth of candidates.

Senator Robert A. Taft, a man experi¬
enced in legislative and executive prac¬
tices as carried on by State and Federal
Governments; a man whose ability, in¬
tegrity, frankness, courage, and deter¬
mination have never been questioned by
those cognizant of the facts, is an avowed
candidate.

General Eisenhower, a man with an
enviable reputation as a military leader
is reputed to be a master of diplomacy,
who apparently adheres to the present
European foreign policy, has been de¬
clared to be a candidate by those who en¬
tertain views similar to his on foreign
policy. He has announced his willing¬
ness to accept the nomination if it is
tendered him. His specific views on
domestic policies are, to a large extent,
unknown.

There are other announced and, no
doubt, dark horse candidates.

It is my understanding that some
Michigan candidates seeking the Repub¬
lican nominations for State and national
office have indicated that General Eisen¬
hower is their choice for the Republican
nomination for President. That is their
right and their privilege.

It would be presumptuous for me to
attempt to dictate to any Republican in
the Fourth Congressional District, or
elsewhere, whom he should support for a
Republican nomination. But as others
in Michigan have indicated their prefer¬
ence and as I am a candidate for the Re¬
publican congressional nomination, and
as many of my constituents have written,
asking my preference, it would be cow¬
ardly for me to refuse to answer that
question, sit on the fence in the hope of
getting votes from both factions.

In my opinion, it is not only the right,
but the duty, of every candidate, when
asked by one whose support he seeks, to
state his views on any political issue.

I have met and heard both General
Eisenhower and Senator Taft express
their views on proposed legislation. Be¬
cause of what I know of the two men
and of their views on domestic, and more
especially, on foreign policy, the Senator
is my personal choice for the nomina¬
tion. I will not, however, be trapped
into an active, aggressive campaign of
either extreme praise or disparagement
to influence the selection or defeat of
any candidate who seeks that nomina¬
tion.

It is my firm conviction that Mr. Tru¬
man, his crew of wasters, spenders, his
corrupt, and, I may add, some disloyal
subordinates, must, for the good of the
country, be ousted.

It is my purpose, as well as my duty
as your Representative, to, before elec¬
tion, speak plainly and vigorously
throughout the district on the principles
which I think should guide us, and then
to support, in like manner, the Repub¬
lican candidates who will be nominated
at the State and national conventions.

This for the reason that, although
neither platform nor candidate may be
just what each of us would like, both—I
predict—will be infinitely better than
anything that will come out of the pres¬
ent New Deal-controlled administra¬
tion.

It is long past time for individual
citizens, if they are at all concerned
about the future of our country, to take
an active part in determining our future
domestic and foreign policy, in the selec¬
tion of those who will implement those
policies.

This is your Government. You have
an opportunity to make it the kind of a
government you want.

Let those who have been negligent of
their duty to participate in political ac¬
tivities now come forward, make their
influence felt, or hereafter hold their
peace when disaster threatens.

Mr. CELLER. Mr. Chairman, I have
no further requests for time.

Mr. GRAHAM. I have no further re¬
quests for time.

The Clerk read as follows:

Be it enacted, etc.. That section 8 of the
Immigration Act of 1917 (39 Stat. 880; 8
U. S C. 144), is hereby amended to read:

“Sec. 8. (a) Any person, including the own¬
er, operator, pilot, master, commanding of¬
ficer, agent, or consignee of any means of
transportation who—

“(2) knowing that he is in the United
States in violation of law, and knowing or
having reasonable grounds to believe that his
last entry into the United States occurred
less than 3 years prior thereto, transports, or
moves, or attempts to transport or move,
within the United States by means of trans¬
portation or otherwise, in furtherance of
such violation of law;

“(4) willfully or knowingly encourages or
Induces, or attempts to encourage or Induce,
either directly or Indirectly the entry into
the United States of any alien, including
an alien seaman, not duly admitted bjr an
immigration officer or not lawfully entitled
to enter or reside within the United States
under the terms of this act or any other law
relating to the immigration or expulsion of
uliens, shall be guilty of a felony, and upon
conviction thereof shall be punished by a
fine not exceeding $2,000 or by imprison¬
ment for a term not exceeding 5 years, or
both, for each alien in respect to whom any
violation of this subsection occurs; Pro¬
vided, however. That for the purposes of this
section, employment (including the usual
and normal practices incident to employ¬
ment) shall not be deemed to constitute
harboring.

“(b) No officer or person shall have author¬
ity to make any arrest for a violation of any
provision of this section except officers and
employees of the United States Immigra¬
tion and Naturalization Service designated
by the Attorney General, either individually
or as a member of a class, and all other
officers of the United States whose duty it
is to enforce criminal laws.

"(c) When the Attorney General or any
district director or any assistant district
director of the Immigration and Naturaliza¬
tion Service has information Indicating a
reasonable probability that in any designated
lands or other property aliens are illegally
within the United States, he may issue his
warrant authorizing the immigration officer
named therein to go upon or within such
designated lands or other property other
than a dwelling in which the warrant states
there may be aliens illegally within the
United States, for the purpose of interrogat¬
ing such aliens concerning their right to
enter or to be or remain in the United States.
Such warrant shall state therein the time of
day or night for its use and the period of
its validity which in no case shall be for
more than 30 days.”

“(2) within a reasonable distance from
any external boundary of the United States,
to board and search for aliens any vessel
within the territorial waters of the United
States and any railway car, aircraft, convey¬
ance, or vehicle, and within a distance of
25 miles from any such external boundary
to have access to private lands, but not dwell¬
ings, for the purpose of patrolling the border
to prevent the illegal entry of aliens into the
United States, and.”

Mr. CELLER. Mr. Chairman, I move
that the Committee do now rise.

Accordingly the Committee rose; and
the Speaker having resumed the chair,
Mr. Herlong, Chairman of the Commit¬
tee of the Whole House on the State of
the Union, reported that that Commit¬
tee, having had under consideration the
bill (S. 1851) to assist in preventing
aliens from entering or remaining in the
United States illegally, had come to no
resolution thereon.

INDIVIDUAL AMERICANS CAN PLAY A

VITAL ROLE IN THE ACHIEVEMENT -OF

A FREE AND PEACEFUL WORLD

(Mr. McKINNOfr asked gjacTwas given
permission to address>w€ House for 1
minute and to revige-fmcl extend his re¬
marks and include a letter.)

Mr. McKJJfNON. Mr. Speaker, if our
country-ds ever to achieve a peaceful
world under a democratic system, it is

1386

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE

February 25

going to require more than the efforts of
our governmental diplomats and mili¬
tary masterminds—great as their ef¬
forts may be.

Peace and freedom is everybody’s busi¬
ness, and the individual American citi¬
zen can play a tremendously vital role
in getting over our aims and ideals to
the rank and file throughout the world.

During the 1948 elections in Italy,
when the Communists threatened to
take over that government, the Italian-
American people undertook a letter
writing campaign to their relatives and
friends in Italy that snatched victory
from defeat.

Millions of Americans are so anxious
to do their part in the battle for peace
and freedom that I believe they will be
interested in a suggestion made by Miss
Joan Fontaine, one of Hollywood’s dis¬
tinguished citizens, and I ask that her
letter be incorporated in the Record at
this point so that my colleagues and their
constituents may have the benefit of a
practical suggestion of what can be done
by our own people to achieve a free and
peaceful world. '

Los Angeles, Calif., February 8, 1952.
Hon. Clinton D. McKinnon,

House of Representatives,

Washington, D. C.

My Dear Mr. McKinnon: Ever since I re¬
turned from an extended trip to Europe, I
have been haunted by the feeling that there
is something we could do for the people of
Europe that we are not doing.

It would cost almost nothing, and I be¬
lieve it would bring tremendous returns.

By "we” and "the people” I do not mean
governments or nations.

I mean individuals.

I talked to a lot of men and women, just
ordinary people, while I was in Italy and
France and Germany, and I saw it in their
eyes.

They aren’t sure that we really want to be
friends. They aren’t sure that we care.
They aren’t sure that we understand that
they are people with everyday problems and
worries—just neighbors who happen to live
across an ocean instead of across the street.

And I can’t help remembering that in a
great book, it says: "Love thy neighbor.”

I do not mean “love” in the ordinary con¬
cept of the word. I mean—and I think the
book means—love that is understanding
and friendliness, sympathy and helpfulness,
the sharing of joy and sorrow and hope. We
don’t have to be exactly like people to love
them; we just need to understand.

I think that is what the eyes, into which
I looked in Europe, were hoping to see when
they looked into mine; what they hope to
see in the eyes of America.

And so I have an idea.

There are millions of women in America,
who are hoping and praying for peace and
a better feeling between nations, but who
are sad because there is so little they can
do. True, they can appeal to the makers
of treaties and international agreements to
put into those agreements, along with the
necessary formal words, a convincing ex¬
pression of our desire to understand and be
understood, but that isn’t personal.

It isn’t like saying directly to someone in
England or France or Germany or Italy, or
even behind the iron curtain, that here in
America is someone who wants to be a
friend.

But suppose that even half of the 75,000,-
000 women in the United States wrote, in
a spirit of friendship and love, to these
neighbors in Europe; wrote regularly.

Suppose they showed a real interest, not
so much in the big problems, but in how

those neighbors are living, what they are
thinking, how they are getting along. Sup¬
pose they wrote about their children and
what they hope for them.

Suppose a woman in New York and one
in London, or one in a little Midwest town
and another in a village in France became
letter friends this way.

Don’t you think they would understand
each other better, and that the understand¬
ing would spread in both countries?

I think that misunderstanding and sus¬
picion are at the bottom of most of the
world’s troubles, although I realize, of course,
that there are evils which can be cured only
by stern measures.

But you don’t misunderstand your friends.
You don’t suspect them.

Any woman can, if she wants to, find
someone in Europe to whom to write. There
are organizations in many American cities
that can help. She could write to city
officials, to a church, to the school superin¬
tendent in a European city and ask for a
name.

Perhaps it seems odd for a motion-picture
actress to suggest something that apparent¬
ly hasn’t anything to do with her own pro¬
fession, but it isn’t so far removed.

We of the acting profession know how
much it means to find that strangers are/
strangers nq longer, but friends; not just'
people who look at us on the stage .nr
screen, but people who are really interested
in us and want to know us better. /

And besides, I am writing now-hot so
much as an actress but as a woman who
has looked into the eyes of our 'neighbors
across the sea.

Isn’t there some way that .this could be
done?

Could Congress approve it, at least as
something worthy of trying? Often it needs
just a suggestion to start something worth¬
while.

Sincerely yours,

Joan Fontaine.

SPECIAL ORDER

The SPEAKER. Under previous order
of the House 1 , the gentleman from Mass¬
achusetts tMr. Furcolo] is recognized
for 60 minutes.

UNIVERSAL MILITARY TRAINING

(Mr. FURCOLO asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)

Mr. FURCOLO. Mr. Speaker, I want
to speak today about the subject that
will come up tomorrow when we begin
debate on the universal military training
bill. I know most of the Members have
given a great deal of thought to it.
There may be some who have made up
their minds as to how they are going to
vote. On the other hand, it seems to me
there are a great many Members on both
sides of the aisle who have not yet de¬
cided just exactly what they want to do.

There are many Members who do not
like universal military training, yet there
does not seem to be any alternative that
has been offered by the Committee on the
Armed Services with the exception of
the bill to be presented tomorrow. I for
one do not think that bill is the answer
to the situation in which we find our¬
selves. It does not give us the strength
we need. It is not the best solution, in
my opinion. It does not give us sufficient
strength nor proper preparedness.

I do not believe it is enough simply to
say that it is not the right answer with¬
out trying to offer something that may
either be constructive in ideas or may

perhaps offer a clue so that someone else
may have an answer that is correct. It
is for that reason I take the floor today.

The program and the solution I* sug¬
gest is a threefold program. To begin
with, as one part of the program, you
would have the Selective Service System
as it is now. I do not mean to continue
the abuses of our Reserves that have been
practiced under it but I do mean that
we would have the framework of a draft
as one part of the solution I propose.

Now, a certain number of our men, of
course, are going to be sent overseas.
Whatever the number of men may be
who are going to be sent overseas, you set
a limit on the number of men who can be
drafted and-be held in readiness in the
military cpmps of this country. The
limit I have suggested that will always be
held in readiness in camps in the United
States/is set at 1,00G,000 men. There is
a re^on why I have arrived at that figure
of i, 000,COO. I will go into the reason in
s^dme detail as I go along.

In the first place, almost everyone
agrees that a man can be made ready
for combat in about 6 months. You
may find different estimates all the way
from 2 months to 10 months or a year
or a year and a half. But in general
most military experts agree you can take
a raw, untrained recruit and have him
ready for combat in approximately 6
months. General Collins, in fact, as I
understand his testimony, has so testi¬
fied in the hearings I read. That is one
reason for the 1,000,000 men I have
suggested.

The second reason is that it is abso¬
lutely impossible for the military to ship
over 1,000,000 men to probable battle¬
fields in less time than 6 months, using
every single means of transportation we
have and doing it as rapidly as we can.
In other words, if the military decided
they had 1,000,000 men they wanted to
get across as rapidly as they could, using
every single means of transportation we
have, they cannot do it in less than 6
months.

That is why I suggest that a limit be
placed on the number of men in camps
in this country—a limit based on, first,
the time it takes to make a man ready for
combat; and second, the transportation
time. Six months is the answer to both.

The second part of the program I have
suggested that is not the Selective Ser¬
vice System and is not the draft is what
I call the student military training
program.

Under that student military training
program, students in high schools and
colleges and universities between the
ages of 17 to 35, if there were any that
old, would be given 3 months’ training
a year. They would get that 3 months’
training between June 15 and Septem¬
ber 15. In that way, of course, there
would be no interference of any kind
with their education.

Now that would give a reserve of ap¬
proximately 400,000 or 500,000 people
between the ages of 17 and 22 years of
age who would have been at least par¬
tially trained. They are not combat
ready but they have had training of 3
months, from June 15 to September 15.
They would not be fully trained, but they

CONGRESSIONAL

PROCEEDINGS

OF INTEREST TO THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

OFFICE OF BUDGET AND FINANCE
(For Department Staff Only)

CONTENTS

Issued Feb* 27, 1952
For actions of Feb. 26, 1952
32nd-2nd, No ,’29

Defense production.7,8

Dairy industry...7

Farn credit.l4

Fnm production.19

Fats and oils.7

Foreign affairs, aid.....15

Forests and forestry. 6

Health. 9

Imort controls.• • *7

Labor, farn..1

Lands. 6,10

rcclanation....16

Lobbying.. 4

ililito.ry training.2

Nomination.9

Personnel.a.3*13

Rivor basin development...

..V. .21,22

Soil Conservation.20

Taxation.10

Territories and

possessions....*. 5,11,17

Textiles. 11

Trade’, foreign. .....7

Transportation...18

T.V.A~. 22

Water utilization.21

IGHLIGHTS: House passed setbacks- entry bill. House debated nil it ary-training bill.
House committee ordered reported bill to provide for loyalty investigations by CSC.
Senate debated Alaska statehood bill-. Senate committee reported O&C land jurisdic¬
tion bill. Senate committee ordered reported import-controls bill.

HOUSE

1. FAR!-! LABOR. Passed with amendments S, 1851, to assist the Justice Department in

preventing the illegal entry of aliens (wetbacks) into the U. S, (pp. l44o-7)»

Agreed to amendments by Rem. Walter to enable any law-enforcement.officer to
arrest aliens illegally in the TJ. S, , and to require the Justice Department to
obtain search warrants from courts before making searches (pp* l44l-4)„

Rejected, JG-81, an amendment by Rem. Phillips to eliminate the H5 - mile
border area within which immigration officers could enter private lands to
search for illegal aliens (pp. 1444-6). Also rejected an amendment by Rem*
Fisher, 78-70* to reduce the bord.er area to 5 miles (mp* 1446-7)*

The bill was passed by a vote of 162-10 (p* 1447) • ■-

.MILITARY TRAINING. Began debate on H. R. 5904, to mrovide for the
[sc inline of the National Security Training Corps (pp. 1448-

3. PERSONNEL II

reported, but did
gat ions by the Civil Ser

IONS. The Post Office and Civil
ptually report, S. 2077» to
Commission in lie

omit tee ordered
le for loyalty investi-
e F3I (p. DI36).

4. LOBBYING REPORT. The Clerk of the Soj33B<^and the Secretary of the Senate submit¬
ted their quarterly report on j^gd^trants^pvq^suant to the Lobbying Act (pp.

1474 - 519 ).

SENATE

TEHOOD. Continued debate on S. 50, to grant statehood to A ... The
.ding question is a motion by Sen, Smathers to recommit the bill to the

erior and Insular Affairs CpriniHee* ( : pp. 1395~9» l4o4—22, 1436-8.)

12 .

LARDS. 'The Interior and Insular Affairs Committee reported with amend?
ments S. 539, providing for an exchange of administrative jurisdiction betvjOen
Agriculture"and Interior over certain of'the O&C lands in Oreg. (S. Rent,

1214) Cp. 1392 ).

"W ...

7 . IMPORT COFTROLS; DAIRY I17DUSTHY. The Ranking and Currency Committee o/dered
reported without amendment, "by a vote of ~J to 5 (dud- did not actually report),

S.~ 2104, to \ep.eal section 104 of the Defense Production Act of 195^» ^.ich
■orovides for import controls on fats and oils and dairy products (p. Dl34).

The "bill was recommitted to the Committee'January 30. /

g. DEFElTSE PRODUCT I OIiACT. The "Daily Digest" states that the Ranting and Curren¬
cy Committee "unanimously agreed to hold hearings beginningjSarch 4 on amend¬
ments’ to the Defense Production Act of 1950, that Government witnesses he
heard'first, that the \earings he closed hy March 21 , an?/that a hill he re¬
ported to the Senate hy March 31" (p* 10-34).

\ /

9 . FOM I1IATI OF. Received the nWiination of Dr. Leonard A/ School e for reappoint¬
ment as Surgeon General of tiae Public Health Service (p. l43S).

10. LAUDS; TAXATION. Received a re'^clution of the ^i/ginia Legislsture urging en¬

actment of legislation to proviote compensation for taxes lost to the State hy
reason of property acquired hy the, Federal Government (pp• 139I~2). To xnter-
ior and Insular Affairs Committee.\

\ /

11. PUERTO RICO. Sen. Rridges discussed with pther Senators the political and econr-

omie conditions in Puerto Rico. He claiited tha.t textile industries from Few
England and elsewhere in the U. S. are/moving to Puerto Rico because of the.
incentives of. tax exemption and low-wage Scales, and inserted newspaper articles
discussing the problem of the Hew Upland textile industry. Sen. 0 ] Mahoney
inserted a memorandum from, the Resident Commissioner of Puerto Rico describ¬
ing general conditions there -and yCrosrume of legislation enacted oy Congress
for Puerto Rico since 1S9S. (pp'* l42R-3eO

iLS IFTRODUCED

MINERALS. Sen. Rennett introduced (for himself and Sen. Watkins) S. 2737» to
authorize Interior to permit the prospecting, development, mining, removal, and
utilization of mineral Resources of national forest lands or lands administered
for national forest p'ywrooses or in connection with national forest programs not
subject to the operation of the general mining laws, the Mineral Leasing Act,
as amended, or the Mine rad Leasing Act for Acquired Lands, or for the develop- >
ment of which no other statutory authority exists; to Interior and Insular Af¬
fairs Committee ,(p. 1392). Sen. Rennett inserted his statement explaining the
purposes of the* bill (p» 1393 )*

13 . PERSONNEL. SC 274l, hy Sen. Johnson, Colo., to amend section 6 of the act of
August 24, A. 912, as amended, with respect to the recognition of organizations
of postal, and Federal employees; to Post Office and Civil Service Committee

(p. 1392). ‘ ' \ '

H./Res. 53o, hy Rep. Anfuso, IT. Y., authorizing and directing the Post Of¬
fice And Civil Service Committee to conduct thorough studies and investigations
relating to matters coming within the jurisdiction of such committee under
rule XI (l)(e) of the Rules of the House of Representatives (defining fche jur¬
isdiction of the Committee); to Rales Committee (p. 1473)*

House of Representatives

The House met at 12 o’clock noon.

The Chaplain, Rev. Bernard Braskamp,
D. D.. offered the following prayer:

O Thou who art the Supreme Intelli¬
gence, show us how we may interpret
and decide \yisely and rightly the great
questions and problems which we are
about to consider.

Thou knowest how deeply and vitally
concerned we are about the defense and
safety of our RepubliKand the welfare of
the whole world.

We humbly confess that our own finite
judgment is so faulty andsfallible that
we cannot predict what lies before us.

Forgive us for sinning against Thee
and against ourselves by allowing our
minds and hearts to be tortured arid tor¬
mented with feelings of doubt and de¬
spair.

The future belongs to Thee. May we , . ,

then daily put our trust in Thee and seek

Thy divine guidance faithfully and
confidently for Thou alone art too wise
to err and too kind to injure.

Hear us in Christ’s name.

THE JOURNAL

The Journal of the proceedings of yes¬
terday was read and approved.

MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE

A message from the Senate, by Mr.
Landers, its enrolling clerk, announced
that the Senate had passed without
amendment bills of the House of the fol¬
lowing titles:

H. R. 800. An act for the relief of Cindy
Eberhardt;

H. R. 1962. An act for the relief of Wanda
R. Barnett;

H. R. 2205. An act for the relief of Mary
Alice Floyd;

H. R. 2398. An act to amend Public Law
848, Eighty-first Congress, second session;

H. R. 2669. An act for the relief of Maria
Sarandrea;

H. R. 2672. An act for the relief of the law
firm of Harrington & Graham;

H. R. 3100. An act to repeal the act of Au¬
gust 7, 1939 (53 Stat. 1243; 48 U. S. C., sec.
353);

H. R. 3569. An act for the relief of Loui3
Campbell Boyd;

H. R. 3860. An act to amend the aot for the
retirement of public-school teachers in the
District of Columbia;

H. R. 3981. An act to amend the act of
July 8, 1943 (57 Stat. 388), entitled "An act
to authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to
adjust titles to lands acquired by the United
States, which are subject to his administra¬
tion, custody, or control”;

H. R. 3985. An act 'for the relief of Hal
Soon Lee;

H. R. 4130. An act for the relief of Caro¬
line Wu;

H. R. 4224. An act for the relief of Mrs.
Eliriede Hartley;

H. R. 4419. An act to amend the District of
Columbia Teachers’ Salary Act of 1947;

H. R. 4703. An act to provide that the
Board of Education of the District of Colum¬
bia shall have sole authority to regulate the
vacation periods and annual leave of absence

Tuesday, February 26,1952

of certain school officers and employees of
the Board of Education of the District of Co¬
lumbia;

H. R. 4749. An act authorizing the Secre¬
tary of Agriculture to return certain lands to
the Police Jury of Caddo Parish, La.;

H. R. 4877. An act for the relief of Mrs.
Margherita Caroli;

H. R. 5097. An act to extend the time dur¬
ing which the Secretary of the Interior may
enter into amendatory repayment contracts
under the Federal reclamation laws, and for
other purposes;

H. R. 5235. An act to authorize and direct
the Commissioners of the District of Colum¬
bia to make such studies and investigations
deemed necessary concerning the location
and construction of a bridge over the Po¬
tomac River, and for other purposes;

H. R. 5256. An act to secure the attendance
of witnesses from without the District of-Co-
lumbia in criminal proceedings; and

H. R. 6273. An act to amend the act re¬
lating to the incorporation of Trinity Col-
D. C., in order to make
the Roman Catholic Arch-
pcese of Washington an ex officio member
and, chairman of rhe board of trustees of
such college.

The message also announced that the
Senate had passed, with amendments in
which the concurrence of the House is
requested, b'Uls of the House of the fol¬
lowing titles:' .

H. R. 1012. An act to permit educational,
religious, or charitable institutions to im¬
port textile machines and parts thereof for
instructional purposes^

H. R. 3219. An act to confer jurisdiction
upon the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Texas to hear, de¬
termine, and render Judgment upon the
claim of Robert E. Vigus;

H. R. 4645. An act for the relief of Mrs.
Marguerite A. Brumell; and

H. R. 5317. An act to confer jurisdiction on
the Court of Claims to hear, determine, and
render judgment upon a certain claim of
the George H. Whike Construction Co., of
Canton, Ohio.

The message also announced that the
Senate had passed bills and concurrent
resolutions of the following titles, in
which the concurrence of the House is
requested:

S. 194. An act to prohibit age requirements
or limitations with respect to the appoint¬
ment of persons to positions in the competi¬
tive civil service during periods of war or
national emergency;

S. 523. An act for the relief of Walter
Duschinsky;

S. 554. An act for the relief of Boutros
Mouallem;

S. 853. An act for the relief of Dr. Ting
Tak Chan;

S. 1032. An act to authorize each of the
States of Montana, North Dakota, South
Dakota, and Washington to pool royalties
derived from lands granted to it for public
schools and various State institutions;

S. 1085. An act for the relief of Kane
Shinohara.

6.1121. An act for the relief of Matsuko
Kurosawa;

S. 1192. An act for the relief of Demetrius
Alexander Jordan;

S. 1234. An act for the relief of Toshlko
Konlshi;

S. 1333. An act for the relief of Marla
Seraphenia Egawa;

S. 1344. An act to amend the law of the
District of Columbia relating to forcible entry
and detainer;

S. 1372. An act for the relief of Mrs. Made-
laine Viale Moore;

S. 1429. An act to prohibit the transporta¬
tion in interstate or foreign commerce of
lethal munitions except when movement is
arranged for, or on behalf of, the United
States of America or an instrumentality
thereof;

S. 1470. An act for the relief of Panagiotes
Roumeliotis;

S. 1534. An act for the relief of Midori
Akimoto, also known els Sharlene Akimoto;

S. 1539. An act to amend an act entitled
"An act to provide extra compensation for
overtime service performed by immigrant in¬
spectors and other employees of the Immi¬
gration Service,” approved March 2, 1931;

S. 1566. An act for the relief of Constantin
Alexander Solomonides;

S. 1580. An act for the relief of Alevtina
Olson and Tatiana Snejina;

S. 1637. An act for the relief of Doreen
Iris Neal;

S. 1639. An act for the relief of Osvaldo
Castro y Lopez;

S. 1676. An act for the relief of Helen
Sadako Yamamoto;

S. 1681. An act for the relief of Sister
Maria Seidl and Sister Anna Ambrus;

S. 1692. An act for the relief of Hilde
Schindler and her minor daughter, Edeline
Schindler;

S. 1697. An act for the relief of Sister
Maria Gasparetz;

S. 1715. An act for the relief of Else Neu-
bert and her two children;

S. 1731. An act for the relief of Rhee Song
Wu;

S. 1796. An act for the relief of Bruno Leo
Freund;

S. 1798. An act granting the consent of
Congress to a compact entered into by the
States of Oklahoma, Texas, and New Mexico
relating to the waters of the Canadian River;

S. 1822. An act to amend the act creating
a juvenile court for the District of Columbia,
approved March 19, 1906, as amended;

S. 1833. An act for the relief of Barbara
Jean Takada;

S. 1836. An act to amend the act approved
March 3, 1899 (30 Stat. 1045, 1057, ch. 422),
so els to provide for the appointment by the
Commissioners of the District of Columbia of
special policemen, and for other purposes;

S. 1846. An act for the relief of Misako
Watanabe and her daughter, Irene Terumi;

S. 1853. An act for the relief of Hidemi
Nakano;

S. 1879. An act for the relief of Ernest
Nanpei Ihrig;

S. 1988. An act for the relief of Leslie A.
Connell;

S. 2113. An act for the relief of Martha
Brak Foxwell;

S. 2147. An act for the relief of Arthur K.
Prior;

S. 2149. An act to confer Federal Jurisdic¬
tion to prosecute certain common-law crimes
of violence when such crimes are committed
on an American airplane in flight over the
high seas or over waters within the admiralty
and maritime jurisdiction of the United
States;

No. 29-7

1439

1440 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE February 26

S. 2150. An act for the relief of Joachim
Nemitz;

S. 2199. An act to amend the Contract Set-*
tlement Act of 1944 and to abolish the Appeai
Board of the Office of Contract Settlement;

S. 2211. An act to amend section 221 (</) .
of the Interstate Commerce Act in order to
clarify certain requirements relating to the
designation of persons upon whom proqess j
may be served;

S. 2214. An act to amend section 709 of
title 18 of the United States Code;

S. 2232. An act for the relief of the Detroit
Automotive Products Co.;

S. 2322. An act prohibiting the manufac¬
ture or use of the character “Smokey Bear”
by unauthorized persons;

S. 2381. An act to amend section 86, Re¬
vised Statutes of the United States relating
to the District of Columbia, as amended;

S. 2383. An act to amend the act entitled
"An act to create a board of accountancy for
the District of Columbia, and for other pur¬
poses,” approved February 17, 1923;

S. 2394. An act to repeal the 10 percent
surcharge on postcards;

S. 2408. An act to amend the act authoriz- '
ing the negotiation and ratification of cer¬
tain contracts with certain Indians of the
Sioux Tribe in order to extend the time for
negotiation and approval of such contracts;

S. 2418. An act for the relief of Britt-Marie
Eriksson and others;

S. 2440. An act for the relief of Hanne
Lore Hart;

S. 2447. An act to amend the Federal
Credit Union Act; -

S. 2458. An act to correct a typographical
error in Public Law 204, Eighty-second Con¬
gress, relating to assistant superintendents
in the Motor Vehicle Service of the Post
Office Department;

S. 2549. An act to provide relief for the
sheep-raising industry by making special
quota immigration visas available to certain
alien sheepherders; '

S. 2566. An act for the relief of Niccolo
Luvisotti;

S. 2658. An act to amend the act of
September 25, 1950, so as to provide that the
liability of the town of Mills, Wyo., to
furnish sewerage service under such act
shall not extend to future construction by
the United States;

S. 2667. An act to authorize the Board of
Commissioners of the District of Columbia
to establish daylight-saving time in the
District;

S. Con. Res. 58. Concurrent resolution
favoring the suspension of deportation of
certain aliens; and

S. Con. Res. 63. Concurrent resolution
favoring the suspension of deportation of
certain aliens; !

SPECIAL ORDER GRANTED

Mr. LANS! asked and was given per¬
mission to address the House for 15
minutes today, following the legislative
program ahd any special orders hereto¬
fore entered.

SCARING IN OF MEMBER

Mr. MARTIN of Massachusetts. Mr.
Speaker/ I ask unanimous consent that
the gentleman from New York, Mr. Rob¬
ert Tripp Ross, be permitted to take the
oath of office. His certificate of elec¬
tion has not arrived, but there is no con¬
test and there is no question as to his
election.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Mas¬
sachusetts?

There was no objection.

The SPEAKER. The Member-elect
will present himself to the bar of the
H Ouse to take the oath.

Mr. ROSS appeared at the bar of the
House and took the oath of office.

SPECIAL ORDER GRANTED

Mr." JAVITS asked and was_givemper-
mission to address the -House'today for
5 minutes, following any special orders
heretofore entered.

ALIENS ENTERING OR REMAINING IN THE
UNITED STATES ILLEGALLY

Mr. WALTER. Mr. Speaker, I move
that the House resolve itself into the
Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union for the further con¬
sideration of the bill (S. 1851) to assist
in preventing aliens from entering or
remaining in the United States illegally.

The motion was agreed to.

Accordingly the House resolved itself
into the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the fur¬
ther consideration of the bill S. 1851,
with Mr. Herlong in the chair.

The Clerk read the title of the bill.

The CHAIRMAN. When the Commit¬
tee rose on yesterday the Clerk had read
the first section of the bill. Are there
any amendments to that section?

Mr. SHELLEY. Mr. Chairman, S.
1851 as we are considering it on the
floor today, purports to be an answer to
the demand voiced by the Government
of Mexico that the United States take
decisive steps to close our borders to the
flow of Mexican citizens who stream into
southwestern United States seeking
work on our farms. It purports to com¬
ply with the President’s demand that
our Immigration Service be given the
enforcement tools it needs to cope with
the hundreds of thousands of so-called
wetbacks who cross the Rio Grande and
other border points each year to add
to our swollen migrant farm-labor pop¬
ulation and to fan out into industrial
areas throughout the country. S. 1851,
in its present form, will do neither of
these jobs in the way that they should
be done.

As originally introduced in the Senate
in S. 1851, and as originally provided in
section 274 of H. R. 5678, the omnibus
immigration bill which the House will
consider shortly, the legislation con¬
tained the teeth necessary to really bite
into the problem. But, as passed by the
Senate, so much dental surgery has been
applied that the measure cannot begin
to do the job it should do. It cannot
begin to clean up the stinking cesspools
of human misery which we are now tol¬
erating within our borders. It cannot
begin to dry up the traffic in human
flesh, the bottomless pool of cheap
labor, which is the source of the shame¬
ful condition we now have throughout
the Southwest; in California, in many of
the Southern States, and which con¬
tinues to spread like a cancer.

This bill now contains no effective
search procedure for rooting out illegal
aliens. Further, it goes out of its way
to make a special exception of the one
circumstance and one group which con¬
tributes more than anything else to the
growth of the vicious peonage system
resulting from the swarming of wetbacks
into the United States. It is the willful
desire to create this miserable peonage
that is the cause of our failure to con¬
trol entry into the country by its poten¬
tial victims. And it is the very group
responsible who are singled out for spe¬

cial consideration in S. 1851. I refer to
the employers of illegal aliens, for the
most part the large farmers of the
Southwest who knowingly encourage the
traffic and build it up, and new have
the temerity to ask that their practices
be exempt from penalty, and that their
lands not be subject to any effective
method of ferreting out the poor hu¬
mans whom they are exploiting.

It is these large scale farmers who
send their emissaries into Mexico to ad¬
vertise the blessings lying across the bor¬
der, and even make arrangements for
their entry, or who deal with so-called
labor contractors—the modern version
of the slave trader—to provide them with
the number of hands they need and no
questions asked. These are the people
who use the wetbacks as they need
them, pay them little or in seme cases
nothing, and then turn them cut to live
in the ditchbanks and to starve. It is
their lands which are the scenes of the
degrading conditions reported in the
press, denounced by the President’s
Commission on Migratory Labor, and
repudiated by every socially conscious
group and individual in the country.
Theirs are the practices we are here to¬
day to do something about. If it were
not for them we would have no problem.
And yet, if S. 1851 passes the House in
its present form, we will have virtually
written them, and any chance of forcing
a change in their vicious policies, out of
the bill.

With the present number of border pa¬
trolmen, and with the present limited
funds available to the Immigration Serv¬
ice for its operations, we cannot hope to
stop up the open sieve the border has
become. Our only chance to apprehend
and take action against any effective per¬
centage of the great numbers of wetbacks
who penetrate beyond the border is to
find them where they “hole up” in this
country—on the large farms. When in¬
formation is received as to the presence
of wetbacks on any farm, if the Immi¬
gration Service cannot move immediate¬
ly they might just as well not move at
all. Limiting free entry to farm lands
to a distance of 25 miles from the border,
and prescribing exceedingly limited and
time consuming search warrant powers
in all other areas, effectively hamstrings
any chance of cleaning out the concen¬
trations of wetbacks on farms in the in¬
terior—the great bulk of those now here.
In addition, it makes almost impossible
any thought of imposing any penalty
upon any employer in those areas no
matter how guilty he may be of evading
the intent or actually violating the letter
of the law. Unless the wetback can be
found on the property, and strong evi¬
dence of the employer’s willful and
knowing action to harbor or conceal him
can be produced, the" proviso of para¬
graph (4) of section 1, of this bill ex¬
empting employment from definition as
“harboring,” will permit the employer to
laugh at the law. And remember that
the law is necessary only because of this
same employer’s activities.

The bill would limit authority to issue
administrative search warrants to six
officials in the three Immigration Service
districts between the Gulf of Mexico and
the Pacific coast—an area of thousands

1952

1441

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE

of square miles, and the area now most
blighted by the influx of wetbacks. It
would limit the search authority to one
immigration officer named therein—who,
in many cases involving the most fla¬
grant offenders, would have to cover
hundreds or thousands of acres. It
would limit the use of the warrant to a
certain, specified time of the day or
night; and it places a 30-day time limit
upon the period in which the warrant
could be used. Judge for yourself the
hopelessness of making any effective use
of such a system with all the opportuni¬
ties for giving warning in advance to the
suspected offenders. The time required
to prepare evidence, travel possibly hun¬
dreds of miles to a district immigration
office to secure a warrant and return to
make a search, would give ample time
for the offending farm or farms to move
their wetbacks out or lend them to a
neighboring farm long before the en¬
forcement officer could hope to put the
warrant into the limited effect possible.
The employer would need to remove his
wetbacks only for the hour named in the
warrant, and could at any other time
put them to work in the fields while he
laughed at the officer outside the fences.
What a farce. It is a well known fact
that the associations of large farmers
have more than enough friends in a posi¬
tion to know of warrants, as issued, that
they need never fear the effects of such
a procedure. Until our law enforcement
authorities are given power to act im¬
mediately on reasonably sufficient infor¬
mation that illegal aliens are employed
on any particular farm, and until we
provide enough officers to give effective
coverage to the large farming sections
of the affected areas, we cannot hope to
cure the wetback problem and its attend¬
ant evils. No law is any better than its
enforcement provisions. S. 1851, with¬
out more drastic powers for uncovering
evidence of violations, would be hardly
better than no law at all.

I shall most certainly support any
amendment designed to replace the pro¬
cedures I have outlined. Authorized im¬
migration service officers should not be
hamstrung in apprehending illegal aliens
whom they have valid reason to believe
are in a particular area. They should be
provided with the authority to enter
farm lands when acting in their official
capacities and in the performance of
their duty. Without that authority
practically the whole of the Southwest
becomes a sanctuary within which the
authorities are powerless to act effec¬
tively.

The bill’s proviso that “for the pur¬
poses of this section, employment (in¬
cluding the usual and normal practices
incident to employment) shall not be
deemed to constitute harboring,” is an
unnecessary weakening of the purposes
of the bill. The long fight which the
associations of large fai’mers waged with
the committee to have the proviso in¬
cluded is, in itself, proof of their inten¬
tion to continue the schemes for obtain¬
ing wetbacks which they have accepted
as usual and normal practices incident
to building up their cheap labor pool.
All they want is the cloak of congres¬
sional sanction so that they can continue

on their merry way and continue to avoid
paying decent wages to the people who
harvest their crops. When we consider
how such a proviso may be interpreted
in practice and in the courts it would
be more than unwise to permit it to re¬
main in the bill. It would amount to a
mandate from Congress that the farm¬
ing corporations are a privileged class,
and that they may not be interfered with
in their pernicious practices. It would
be a barefaced admission that our only
reason for passing this bill is to throw
a sop to the Government and people of
Mexico who demand that we do some¬
thing to clean house before they will
pprmit any more of their contract na¬
tionals to cross the border. Mexico is
righteously indignant at the conditions
under which their people must work and
live on the farms of the United States.
They recognize that only if we force the
corporation farmer to provide decent
living conditions and pay decent wages
will he do so. They also recognize that
as long as the border is open to crossings
at will, and as long as a mass of cheap
wetback labor is available/ conditions
will get no better and their contract na¬
tionals as well as our native migrant
labor will pay the penalty. Writing this
protective clause for the employer of
wetbacks into S. 1851 simply underwrites
the purpose of the large farmer’s as¬
sociations to have Congress pass the kind
of a measure which will persuade the
Government of Mexico to extend their
agreements with the United States to
provide a continuing supply of contract
nationals, while at the same time doing
nothing to jeopardize the supply of wet¬
backs who can be more easily ground
into the dirt from which they squeeze
fantastic profits for the corporation
farms.

The proviso in paragraph (4) of sec¬
tion 1 of this bill must be stricken out
if we are to keep faith with ourselves
and with our Mexican neighbors. It
must be stricken out as a sign that this
Congress is in no mood to temporize
with the forces responsible for the human
misery spreading through the South, the
Southwest, and into other sections of the
land. It must be stricken out if we are
to raise the intolerable living standards
of American farm labor in those areas,
and if we are to keep the millions of
legitimately run small farms in this
country secure from the merciless com¬
petition of the corporation farms. We
do not want our food supplies brought
to us from farms made more fertile by
the flesh and blood of ill-fed, ill-housed,
and ill-clothed human beings.

There is no reason why the same
standards of living cannot prevail among
our farm labor population as prevails
among our factory workers. No reason
save the greed and selfishness of those
who are willing to grind people into the
ground so that they may grind more
profits from it. The factory sweatshops
of the 1800’s find their counterpart on
many of the corporation farms of Amer¬
ica today. It is time we legislated them
out of existence just as enlightened Con¬
gresses legislated the sweatshop out of
existence. S. 1851 as it now stands is
only a gesture in that direction. If we

give real authority to our Immigration
Service officers and eliminate from the
bill the free hand given to employers of
wetbacks we shall have taken a giant
stride.

Mr. Chairman, it is my purpose to
move or support amendments which will
be offered to strike from S. 1851 the pro¬
viso protecting .the willful employers of
wetbacks, and to revise paragraph (c) of
section 1 of the bill so that Immigration
Service officers may effectively root the
wetbacks out of the farms on which they
are hidden in semislavery. I strongly
urge my colleagues who value humanity
more than the fattened profits of the
corporation farmers to do the same.

The bill, unless drastically improved,
is a weak approach to a solution of a
critical social and international prob¬
lem. True it is some approach, and any
improvement in the present loosely leg¬
islated situation is for the better. I
hope the bill is made better than it is.

Mr. WALTER. Mr. Chairman, I offer
an amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Walter: Page
3, line 10, after “officers”, strike out “of
the United States.”

Mr. WALTER. Mr. Chairman, the
purpose of this amendment is to make it
possible for any law enforcement officer
to make an arrest. It is necessary be¬
cause under the language as contained
in the Senate bill the only officers au¬
thorized to make arrests are members of
the Immigration and Naturalization
Service or of the FBI. Now quite ob¬
viously it is not always possible to at- -
tract the attention of officers of those
classifications, and I feel that any law
enforcement officer, whose duty it is to
enforce the criminal laws, should have
the authority under this statute to make
an arrest of a felon.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the amendment offered by the gentle¬
man from Pennsylvania.

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. WALTER. Mr. Chairman, I offer
an amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Walter: Page
3, line 17, strike out “issue his warrant” and
insert “obtain a warrant under oath from
any court of competent jurisdiction.”

Mr. WALTER. Mr. Chairman, this
amendment is designed to require the
Attorney General or his subordinates to
obtain a search warrant where it is the
intention of these officers to make a
search. It is the intention by this lan¬
guage to give jurisdiction to any court
of competent jurisdiction, whether it be
a State or a Federal court.

Those who argue that it would be very
difficult to obtain search warrants in
certain sections of the country should
bear in mind the fact that in the event
that local judges would not issue search
warrants, then, upon cause shown, it
would be entirely possible for the en¬
forcement officers to obtain the neces¬
sary search warrant in the United
States courts.

While there is authority, and I believe
it is ample authority, for this adminis¬
trative search warrant, so-called, never-

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE February 26

1442

theless I feel that we ought not to take
any chances on running afoul of the pro¬
visions of the Constitution. For that
reason, I feel that this amendment is
necessary.

Mr. HILLINGS. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?

Mr. WALTER. I yield to the gentle¬
man from California.

Mr. HILLINGS. In the gentleman’s
opinion, the amendment he is now offer¬
ing will definitely satisfy the constitu¬
tional provision under amendment 4 of
the Constitution guaranteeing the right
of protection against unlawful and un¬
reasonable search and seizure; is that
correct?

Mr. WALTER. Yes; that is correct.
There are, of course, precedents for the
so-called administrative warrants. The
Postmaster General has the authority to
issue an administrative search warrant.
The Public Health Service has the same
authority. However, on examination of
the cases I do not find where the consti¬
tutionality of either of those statutes
has been passed upon. In my judgment,
there is a very serious question as to
whether or not the language in the Sen¬
ate bill violates the fourth amendment
of the Constitution.

Mr. HILLINGS. In effect, what the
gentleman’s amendment will do is sub¬
stitute existing law as codified in rule 41,
title 18 of the United States Code, for
the language now in section (c) of the
bill?

Mr. WALTER. Yes; that is in effect
what this language does.

Mr. HILLINGS. I believe the amend¬
ment is most worthy of support, par¬
ticularly at a time when we are con¬
cerned about our freedoms in this coun¬
try. It seems particularly important
that we guarantee the protection of
those freedoms as outlined in the Con¬
stitution.

Mr. WALTER. More than that, I
think it is essential that we endeavor to
enact legislation that will make it pos¬
sible to impose a penalty on the most
serious offenders in cases of this sort,
namely, those people who are willfully
and knowingly harboring aliens illegally
in the United States.

Mr. HILLINGS. I agree with the
gentleman. I think this amendment
will make it possible to properly enforce
the law as contained in the other sec¬
tions of the bill.

Mr. FISHER. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?

Mr. WALTER. I yield to the gentle¬
man from Texas.

Mr. FISHER. Will the gentleman
again read his amendment? I must
have missed part of it.

Mr. WALTER. Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent that the Clerk again
read the amendment.

There being no objection, the Clerk
again read the amendment.

Mr. FISHER. Is that the only
amendment the gentleman proposes to
offer to subsection (c) on page 3?

Mr. WALTER. Yes. Then the lan¬
guage would continue, “authorizing the
immigration officer named therein,’’

meaning the search warrant thus ob¬
tained.

Mr. FISHER. Does the gentleman
feel that the Constitution authorizes the
issuance of a search warrant for going
on private property for the purpose of
interrogating people, not searching for
anything, but just the general interro¬
gation authority?

Mr. WALTER. I actually do not
think the search warrant is necessary
for that purpose, but in an overabun¬
dance of caution, to see that violence
is not done to the Constitution, this lan¬
guage has been offered. I feel that un¬
der the law where an immigration offi¬
cer has reason to believe that aliens are
illegally on a man’s premises he has a
right to interrogate those aliens. I do
not think any search warrant is neces¬
sary.

Mr. FISHER. I am surfe if he has
probable cause under the proper circum¬
stances he can do it, but I am sure the
gentleman would agree that he would
be’ responsible for the abuse of that
authority if he did not have proper
authority.

Mr. CELLER. Mi'. Chairman, I move
to strike out the last word, merely pos¬
sibly to clarify the amendment offered
by the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

When the gentleman uses the words
“Court of competent jurisdiction” I pre¬
sume he means a court of record; is that
not correct?

Mr. WALTER. That is correct.

Mi’. CELLER. By the rules of crim¬
inal procedure, rule 41, under the title
“Search and Seizure,” which rules of
criminal procedure were adopted by the
Congress under title 28 of the United
States Code, we have the following:

Authority to issue warrant: A search war¬
rant authorized by this rule may be issued
by a judge of the United States or of a State
or of a Territorial court of record, or by a
United States Commissioner within the dis¬
trict wherein the property sought is located.

So I think in any future interpreta¬
tions of this amendment, if it is adopted,
and I hope it will be adopted because I
am in favor of it, the courts are now in¬
structed (as per the following), at least
so far as I am concerned, and if I hear
no objection to what I say, the courts
are deemed to consider this as the view
of the House: That when the words
“competent jurisdiction” are used that
means a court of record either of the
State or of the United States.

Mr. HILLINGS. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?

Mr. CELLER. I yield.

Mr. HILLINGS. Did I understand the
gentleman from New York, the distin¬
guished chairman of the Committee on
the Judiciary, to refer to the rule, which
he has been reading, as title 28 of the
United States Code?

Mr. CELLER. No, I was referring to
rule 41 of the Rules of Criminal Pro¬
cedure, which is title 28 of the United
States Code.

Mr. HILLINGS. I see. There was a
confusion in my mind over the fact that
the law as to the issuing of warrants is
codified under rule 41, title 18, but the

rule to which you are referring comes
under the Rules of Criminal Procedure,
is that correct?

Mr. CELLER. That is correct. I just
wanted to make this statement so the
courts interpreting this amendment will
be guided by what we say here.

Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. Mr.
Chairman, I move to strike out the last
word.

(Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan asked
and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)

Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. Mr.
Chairman, I am no doubt laboring under
the same disadvantage as many other
Members of the House in that we lack
time to give this legislation the consid¬
eration which it merits. But having the
greatest confidence in the judgment and
ability of the gentleman from Pennsyl¬
vania [Mr. Walter] and in that of the
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr.
Graham] as well as in like qualities of
the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Fisher],
I would like to have the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Walter] tell me
whether this legislation, as now pro¬
posed, authorizes anyone other than the
courts to issue search and seizure war¬
rants.

Mr. WALTER. The bill, as it passed
the other body, authorized the Attorney
General to designate certain commis¬
sioners in the Bureau of Immigration
and Naturalization to issue search war¬
rants. The amendment, which I offer,
requires the warrant application to be
made under oath to a court of compe¬
tent jurisdiction.

Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. Instead
of to an immigration official?

Mr. WALTER. That is correct.

Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. Is that
the understanding of the gentleman
from Pennsylvania [Mr. Graham] ?

Mr. GRAHAM. Yes; that is my un¬
derstanding.

Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. Then,
that would take care of the objection of
the gentleman from Texas; would it not?

Mr. GRAHAM. We think so.

Mr. FISHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in
opposition to the pro forma amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I have asked for this
time in order to try to get a little more
clarification of the import of the pending
amendment of the gentleman from
Pennsylvania. Is it true under the terms
of the pending amendment that the At¬
torney General or any district director
or any assistant director of the Immi¬
gration and Naturalization Service
would not be permitted to issue a search
warrant for any purpose?

Mr. WALTER. Yes; it is very plainly
stated. The words are “must obtain a
warrant under oath from any court of
competent jurisdiction.”

Mr. FISHER. When the court issues
that warrant it must be based upon prob¬
able cause; is that correct?

Mr. WALTER. Certainly; and I do not
think that the Immigration Service is
going to work under any particular hard¬
ship, even in those counties in Texas
where judges of the courts are the most
flagrant violators of the law.' I think

1952 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE

that in those circumstances the immi¬
gration authorities can go to the United
States courts, and upon proper showing
obtain a search warrant, and search
premises in which illegal border crossers
are being concealed and harbored.

Mr. FISHER. But, under the amend¬
ment proposed this warrant would be
obtained “upon information indicating
a reasonable probability that in any des¬
ignated land or other property, aliens
are illegally within the United States.”
That language remains in the bill. In
other words, it must not be based neces¬
sarily upon probable cause at all, but,
to quote again, “upon information indi¬
cating a reasonable probability.” Does
not the gentleman think that the lan¬
guage ought to be the same as it is now
in the issuance of a warrant for search
for stolen property, or other similar of¬
fenses under the criminal code? I am
afraid this merely gives them a blank
check to obtain a search warrant upon
a hunch, without any probable cause at
all. It is a complete departure from
the constitutional protection that has
always been recognized in making
searches.

The gentleman’s reference to the
courts is, I can assure you, both unwar¬
ranted and unfair.

Mr. WALTER. Well, I do not know
whether the gentleman can determine
“probable cause” as contained in the
fourth amendment to the Constitution
from the language contained in this
statute. Frankly, I cannot. I have ex¬
amined authorities. I am sure the ter¬
minology is synonymous.

I will confer with the gentleman fur¬
ther regarding that. The gentleman has
offered an amendment and he says it
has a certain meaning. I want to be
sure of that.

Let me ask the gentleman another
question. Under the terms of this bill
these search warrants, which may be
more accurately described as a fishing
expedition, have to be returned in 30
days. In other words, the applicant
says: “There are some illegal aliens at a
certain place at this time.” The search
warrants are issued and they have 30
days within which to go out and look
for them. Does the gentleman think
that is a reasonable time?

Mr. CELLER. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield to me on the prior
question?

Mr. FISHER. My time is about to
expire.

Mr. CELLER. The gentleman can get
more time. I would like to read to the
committee rule 41, subsection (c):

Warrant shall issue only on affidavits
sworn to before a judge or commissioner,
establishing the grounds for issuing the
warrant. If the judge or commissioner is
satisfied that the grounds for the application
exist and there is probable cause to believe
that they exist, he shall issue the warrant,
identifying the property, naming or describ¬
ing the place or person to be searched.

You have that in the law now.

Mr. FISHER. Is the gentleman agree¬
able to inserting that in this present
bill?

Mr. CELLER. Why have it in this
bill? It is now the law. A warrant can
only be issued on probable cause.

Mr. FISHER. But you can change
laws and amend them and the present
bill proposes amendments.

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from Texas has expired.

Mr. FISHER. Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent to proceed for five
additional minutes.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
Texas?

There was no objection.

Mr. FISHER. The gentleman’s posi¬
tion is that this does not in any way
affect the main provisions of existing
law which he has just read?

Mr. CELLER. It does not.

Mr. FISHER. Is it the gentleman’s
position, then, that the language which
he has put into this bill saying that a
search warrant can be issued on infor¬
mation indicating reasonable probabil¬
ity is meaningless, and that it will actu¬
ally have to be on probable cause? Is
that the gentleman’s position?

Mr. CELLER. I do not think there is
any real difference between the language
of the rule I have mentioned and the
language of the bill.

Mr. FISHER. I regret that the amend¬
ment to the bill before us is not more
specific. It provides an improvement in
the bill, and I am pleased to have the
gentleman’s assurance that there will be
the same requirement for probable cause
in obtaining a search warrant under
this bill as would be the case if a warrant
were issued for the search of stolen prop¬
erty, for example.

Mr. CELLER. It is very difficult to
amend a bill as carefully considered as
this has been. These are words of art,
legal art, that have been used in the bill.
Now, suddenly to come upon us and ask
us to change that language—I would
want as a result of mere surface think¬
ing to accede to the gentleman’s request;
so I think it perfectly safe when you
have the provisions in rule 41 that the
warrant can only be issued upon prob¬
able cause; then in addition when you
have the safeguards that are in the bill
itself, I do not think the gentleman need
be concerned at all.

Mr. FISHER. I appreciate the gentle¬
man’s solicitude about my concern, but
I still am at a loss to understand why
the gentleman says that because of the
art in which this language was designed
and put into this bill there is something
sacrosanct about it and it should not be
changed to conform to the exact words
now in the existing law on other’subjects.

One other question I was going to
ask the gentleman: I should like to know
why the gentleman feels that these gen¬
eral search warrants to look for any¬
body without any description of the peo¬
ple they are going to look for, without
any allegation of what they look like,
their names, or anything else, that they
are going to use blanket search war¬
rants, general search warrants, and have
the right to use them for 30 days without
making a report—why wait 30 days to
look for a criminal or violator when he
is known? The general practice on
time for making these reports is 10 days.

Mr. CELLER. The rule now appli¬
cable, which is not changed by these

provisions, says that the warrant must
identify the property, must name or de¬
scribe the person or place to be searched.
I do not know what more the gentleman
wants. That is in the law now.

Mr. FISHER. There is no description
whatever in the bill; it does not require
the description of any persons they are
searching for, none whatever. It is just
a fishing expedition; that is what it
means. Now, it is all right for them to
have the power to search places, but let
it be in conformity to established rules
and procedures that have always been
followed in protecting people against un¬
reasonable searches and seizures.

One further question of the gentleman
before I conclude, Mr. Chairman; will
the gentleman indicate, if he knows, how
long a time is permitted an officer under
present law to return a search warrant
that is issued for searching for stolen
property?

Mr. WALTER. There is no limit.

Mr. FISHER. Oh, yes; it is 10 days.

Mr. WALTER. What is it?

Mr. FISHER. Ten days.

Mr, WALTER. I do not know of any
limitation on any Federal search war¬
rant.

Mr. FISHER. Yes; there is, if the
gentleman will only read it. Why should
we wait for 30 days? That, of course,
puts the imprint of blanket authority, a
general right to search with absolute
freedom and without any restriction and
without any immediate anticipation of
what they are going to do when it is
issued, because they will have 30 days to
make the search day after day, night
after night, day or night. Why grant it
for 30 days? That is a very dangerous
departure from every precedent in every
law we have ever had. If you know a
man is wanted why wait for 30 days to
get him? As a matter of fact, why not
go out and get him right away? What
are they doing waiting 30 days? That
in itself raises a question of the good
faith of those who obtain warrants un¬
der these circumstances.

This bill contains some provisions
which every one approves, and I wish
some undesirable provisions could be cor¬
rected to prevent unwarranted abuse of
the authority that is given.

Mr. MORRIS. Mr. Chairman, I move
to strike out the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to have
this matter clarified. Amendment IV to
the Constitution reads as follows:

The right of the people to be secure in
their persons, houses, papers, and effects
against unreasonable searches and seizures,
shall not be violated, and no warrants shall
issue, but upon probable cause, supported
by oath or affirmation, and particularly de¬
scribing the place to be searched, and the
persons or things to be seized.

Now, in reference to the unreasonable
search part of it, I take it that what is
meant generally is when an officer sees
a person in the commission of a crime
he has a perfect right to make an arrest
and to make a search as an incident to
the arrest; also when an officer discovers
by seeing, smelling, and so forth that an
offense is being committed in his pres¬
ence he has a right to search as an inci¬
dent to that arrest. But the Constitu¬
tion provides, Mr. Chairman, and I re-

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE February 26

1444

peat, that no warrant shall issue but
upon probable cause supported by oath
or affirmation.

Section (c) on page 3 of this bill pro¬
vides:

When the Attorney General or any dis¬
trict director or any assistant district di¬
rector of the Immigration and Naturaliza¬
tion Service has information indicating a
reasonable probability.

It seems to me that is not sufficient
under the Constitution of the United
States.

I ask, where in section (c) do you find
any provision whatsoever that the war¬
rant will issue upon oath or affirmation?
How can you pass any law without that
provision?

Mr. WALTER. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?

Mr. MORRIS. I yield to the gentle¬
man from Pennsylvania.

Mr. WALTER. The gentleman was
not here when -the amendment was read
apparently. It provides that it is nec¬
essary to obtain a warrant under oath
from any court of competent jurisdic¬
tion.

Mr. MORRIS. Has that been
adopted?

Mr. WALTER. It has not been
adopted. It is before the committee at
this time.

Mr. MORRIS. I am speaking on that
amendment. The amendment ought to
be adopted, there is no question about
that, else it would be unconstitutional
and very dangerous.

This says that the Attorney General
or any district director or any assistant
director may issue the warrant. Will
this amendment take care of that?
Does it provide that the warrant can
only be issued by a court?

Mr. WALTER. By a court of com¬
petent jurisdiction.

Mr. MORRIS. Then we ought to
adopt the amendment and that will cure
it.

Mr. WILSON of Texas. Mr. Chair¬
man, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. MORRIS. I yield to the gentle¬
man from Texas.

Mr. WILSON of Texas. If the
amendment is adopted, will that be suf¬
ficient? I am of the opinion it will be.
There seems to be some difference of
opinion here.

M\ MORRIS. I would want to study
the language and I shall study it im¬
mediately. I rather think it will from
what the gentleman from Pennsylvania
has suggested. I believe it will be suffi¬
cient, but I want to study the language
before I answer that finally.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the amendment offered by the gentle¬
man from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walter],

The amendment was agreed to.

The Clerk read as follows:

Sec. 2. The last proviso to the paragraph
headed “Bureau of Immigration” in title IV
of the act of February 27 1925 (43 Stat.
1049; 8 U. S. C. 110), as amended by the act
of August 7, 1946 (60 Stat. 865), is hereby
further amended so that clause numbered
(2) shall read:

“(2) within a reasonable distance from
any external boundary of the United States,
to beard and search for aliens any vessel
within the territorial waters of the United

States and any railway car, aircraft, con¬
veyance, or vehicle, and within a distance
of 25 miles from any such external boundary
to have access to private lands, but not
dwellings, for the purpose of patrolling the
border to prevent the illegal entry of aliens
into the United States, and.”

Mr. PHILLIPS. Mr. Chairman, I of¬
fer an amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Phillips: On
page 4 strike out the words on line 10 be¬
ginning with “and within,” all of line 11 to
and including the words on line 12 ending
with “but not dwellings.”

Mr. PHILLIFS. Mr. Chairman, the
amendment which I have just offered
follows the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr.
Walter]. The gentleman from Penn¬
sylvania offers an amendment which re¬
quires that a search warrant be secured
from a court of competent jurisdiction.
That is the proper way to handle the
matter.

Now that the first part of the bill has
been amended to make it necessary to
go to a court of competent jurisdiction,
which is correct, and which I was glad
to support, it becomes unnecessary to
have in the bill this area, this band of
25 miles along the external border. It
is discriminatory and it is unnecessary
and I hope the gentleman from Pennsyl¬
vania will accept the amendment.

What I am striking out are the words
“and within a distance of twenty-five
miles from any such external boundary
to have access to private lands.”

This is antagonistic to the basic theory
of our Government of the right of a man
to have his property, his home—and
these are homes as well as farms—free
and safe from search except under the
provisions of a search warrant procured
from a court of competent jurisdiction.
That is the intent of the amendment.

Mr. WALTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise
in opposition to the amendment.

M. Chairman, the adoption of this
amendment would mean that we are
merely restating existing law. The pur¬
pose of this language is to permit the
border patrol and the Immigration and
Naturalization Service to patrol those
vast areas, not any duelling houses, not
any buildings, for the purpose of appre¬
hending people who are being surrepti¬
tiously brought across the border at
points other than the established border
crossings. The adoption of this lan¬
guage would make it absolutely impos¬
sible for the immigration people to
patrol our borders.

It is indeed unfortunate, and I repeat
what I said yesterday, that we should
consider this as being only a wetback
bill. It is not anything of the sort.
Those of us along the Atlantic seabord,
it seems to me, are on one side trying to
get rid of aliens illegally in the United
States, and there are other people here
who want to keep them. I should think
that the gentleman from California
would consider the fact that this is a law
now under consideration applying to all
parts of the United States. As far as this
Border Patrol phase is concerned, there
are hundreds and thousands of miles
along the borders between the United

States and Merr'co and the United States
and Canada. Now if our Border Patrol
would not have the right to pass freely
over that open territory in order to at¬
tempt to apprehend these people, then it
certainly seems to me that we are not
doing our full duty toward aiding the
properly constituted officers to enforce
the law.

Mr. Chairman, I ask that the amend¬
ment be defeated.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, I rise
in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, it seems to me the first
thing we should do in connection with
this matter is be properly informed on
the law. The fourth amendment to the
Constitution has been quoted. Remem¬
ber what it states, “their persons, houses,
papers, and effects.” It does not men¬
tion the transport of human beings.
These human beings that are being
imported into this country are not
only the so-called wetbacks but others
that come across the border in other
places. You can locate a paper or the
personal effects of an individual, but you
cannot locate the individual if he moves
around from place to place.

If this amendment w T ere to succeed,
instead of the border patrol going right
along for 25 miles, they would have to
look in and out, in and out, leaving bare
great unexplored and uninspected places.

The second thing it seems to me We
ought to realize is this: In the case of
Hester v. United States (265 U. E. 52), the
Supreme Court has said:

The amendment does not mean that the
lands or premises of a person shall not be
searched; these are not included in the term
“house.”

Note that the lands and premises may
be searched.

There is nowhere any provision against an
officer searching one’s land or premises with¬
out a warrant.

That is exactly what these border pa¬
trolmen will do. They will search the
land without entering the house.
Therefore, there is no violation of the
fourth amendment.

Finally, let us realize the nature of de¬
portation proceedings. In the case of
Quan Quan Poy v. Johnson (273 U. S.
352), the Supreme Court held that de¬
portation proceedings are not criminal.
All the arguments in the last 2 days we
have heard on the authority of the issu¬
ance of search warrants have been di¬
rected to the fact that they were crimi¬
nal proceedings. Deportation proceed¬
ings are not criminal proceedings.
These are intended to get these indi¬
viduals who have been surreptitiously
and illegally brought into this country.
We have now the word of the Supreme
Court that deportation proceedings are
not criminal prosecutions within
the meaning of the fifth and sixth
amendments.

It is stated:

The authority to deport is drawn from the
authority of Congress to regulate the com¬
ing of aliens within the United States and
to impose conditions upon the performance
of which the continued liberty of the alien
to reside within the country may be made
to depend; and findings of fact reached by
executive officials after a fair though sum-

1952 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE 1445

mary hearing may constitutionally be made
conclusive.

Now, to crystallize this matter, here is
a provision in this bill which provides for
a search along a great border, either the
Mexican or Canadian border, whatever
border it may be, going back for 25 miles,
for the purpose of searching the lands,
not the houses but the lands, in further¬
ance of the authority as laid down in the
fifth and sixth amendments, of deporting
those aliens who have been unlawfully
brought into this country. It is not to
search the persons, houses, papers, and
effects, but to search for aliens ille¬
gally within our borders.

There is ‘the whole thing in a nut¬
shell. What we -are asking for is not
the case of Texas alone, but for the whole
border of the United States. In the sec¬
tion around New York it is estimated
there are over 200,000 aliens at the pres¬
ent time who have come in in avoidance
of the law, who have been gathered up
by certain contractors and herded and
used for their selfish purposes. The
same thing applies along the Canadian
border. So, in fixing a law that embraces
the whole territorial extent, all of the
18,000 miles of the boundaries of the
United States, taking care of all the 48
States, it is necessary that we apply this
in a manner that will cover the whole
thing,

Mr. MORANO. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?

Mr. GRAHAM. I yield to the gentle¬
man from Connecticut.

Mr. MORANO. The gentleman says
a deportation proceeding is not a crimi¬
nal proceeding?

Mr. GRAHAM. It is so held by the
Supreme Court.

Mr. MORANO. Under the proposed
law, the harboring of such illegally en¬
tered alien would be criminal; is not that
so?

Mr. GRAHAM. If it is done with the
knowledge that he entered unlawfully,
and was being harbored in violation of
the law.

Mr. MORANO. There would not be
any criminal procedure against the alien
who entered, but there would be against
the man or woman who harbored him; is
that correct?

Mr. GRAHAM. The proceedings
would be possible against both in this
sense, that while the importation pro¬
ceedings are not exactly criminal in na¬
ture, they are in effect in that the man
is to be deported or returned to where he
came from. That is to be done on the
part of the immigration official. On the
part of the individual who has harbored
him unlawfully, knowing that he entered
unlawfully—and get this chain of
thought, as explained yesterday in the
Supreme Court decision.

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from Pennsylvania has ex¬
pired.

Mr. FISHER. Mr. Chairman, I move
to strike out the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the
amendment, offered by the gentleman
from California. I hesitate to take more
of the time of the House, which has al¬
ready heard quite a bit of explanation
from me about the different phases of

this bill today, but since it happens that
I represent a district which runs along
the Mexicon border for some distance. I
think I am fairly well acquainted with
the situation there.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to explain
very briefly what this situation is. I
think there is a great deal of confusion
about it, and if I can contribute anything
toward a better understanding of what
we are dealing with, I feel I will be doing
my duty here with respect to this prop¬
osition.

What is being attempted? A few mo¬
ments ago there was approved tentative¬
ly an amendment to this bill which gave
quite a bit of latitude in the issuance of
search warrants for the searching for
illegal aliens without naming them, or
identifying them, or describing them in
any way when the search warrant is ob¬
tained. That search-warrant provision
applies along the 25-mile area. But,
they are not satisfied with that. They
want authority—blanket authority—a
permanent easement, if you please, for
all of the immigration officers in the
country to have access to people’s prop¬
erty to come and go, day or night, any
time of the year, any time of the week,
over an area of 25 miles from the border
for the purpose of patrolling the border.
Of course, you have to patrol the border.
No one would defend the position that of¬
ficers should not have reasonable access
to the border in order to prevent aliens
from coming in who are illegals—of
course not—they have that authority
now. Several members of the Committee
bn Agriculture are present on the floor
at this time. They had a great deal to
do with the foot-mouth disease and the
patrol work that goes with it. At one
time 660 patrolmen were patrolling the
Rio Grande. Did they come to Congress
to get blanket authority and a perma¬
nent easement to enter land .25 miles
from the border in order to patrol that
area? Of course not, because they did
not need it, they have that authority.
The immigration authorities have that
same authority now, but they cannot
abuse it, they cannot go out miles from
the border without any possible recourse
to any person for abuses or indiscretions
that may be involved in searching over a
distance of 25 miles from the border.
They must be reasonable about it, and
they must not abuse that right. The
question was raised about the authority
of the patrolmen to go up and down the
border under the foot-and-mouth-dis¬
ease program, under the quarantine. I
have a letter here from Dr. Simms, in
which he discusses that. Here is what
he says in a letter which was written on
February 8 of this year. Dr. Simms is in
charge of this program, and this is a
statement that he made.

Some years ago when a question came up
concerning the authority for Bureau of
Animal Industry inspectors to enter private
property in patrolling the Mexican border,
we were advised that although there did not
appear to be any specific legislative authori¬
ty for the entry of our Inspectors upon pri¬
vate property for the purpose of patrolling
the border to enforce the foot-and-mouth
disease quarantine, which such entry is es¬
sential to the carrying out of the quarantine,
a position of implied authority to enter ex¬
ists.

And, he said he had the legal author¬
ity to do that. The letter reads further
as follows:

Under these conditions It was of course
desirable that entry of private lands for the
purpose of patrol should be made with the
cooperation of the property owner.

He went on to say:

However, we have been further advised
that if the entry cannot be made with the
cooperation of the property owner that the
implied authority may be relied upon.

In other words, they have the authori¬
ty now. There is no question about it.
If they have authority to go on proper¬
ty, as he indicates here, to prevent live¬
stock from coming across under the live¬
stock quarantine, certainly the immi¬
gration authorities have the implied au¬
thority to go along the border for the
purpose of patrolling or enforcing the
quarantine against illegal aliens coming
In. But that authority applies to the
border—not to a 25-mile area far re¬
moved from the border itself.

There is no question about it. But
why should we give them a 25-mile per¬
manent, perpetual easement, to go on
property at all hours of the day or night,
break down gates if they need to, inter¬
fere with livestock, and run roughshod
if they so desire—and some of them
sometimes are inclined to do that—over
that vast area? Why do they not go and
get the search warrant they have been
fighting for? They can already operate
within a reasonable distance of the bor¬
der under the present law, and this
amendment should be adopted. You will
still have all the enforcement you need
under this law, all that any person
could reasonably ask for.

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from Texas has expired.

Mr, HILLINGS. Mr. Chairman, I rise
in support of the amendment, and I yield
to the gentleman from California [Mr.
Phillips] for a unanimous-consent re¬
quest.

Mr. PHILLIPS. Mr. Chairman, I ob¬
serve what it is that is causing the argu¬
ment over the amendment, which I did
not think was that controversial. I ask
unanimous consent, at the end of the
amendment as I placed it on the desk,
that the word “and” may be added.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
California?

There was no objection.

Mr. PHILLIPS. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield further?

Mr. HILLINGS. I yield.

Mr. PHILLIPS. That makes it read
in brief “within a reasonable distance
from any external boundary of the
United States, to board and search for
aliens any vessel within the territorial
waters of the United States,” under the
provisions adopted in the previous
amendment, “and for the purpose of
patrolling the border to prevent the il¬
legal entry of aliens into the United
States.”

It was not intended to shut off the
right to patrol the border under the
terms of the act as it presently exists,
or under proper patrol. It was my in¬
tent, as it was the desire expressed by
the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Fisher],

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE February 26

1446

to confine it, not to a 25-mile limit arbi¬
trarily, not to a fixed distance, but only
to that necessary area required for pa¬
trol. I think this is a desirable and nec¬
essary amendment.

Mr. HILLINGS. Would the gentle¬
man read the entire section as it would
read with his amendment?

Mr. PHILLIPS—

Within a reasonable distance from any
external boundary of the United States, to
board and search for aliens any vessel with¬
in the territorial waters of the United States
and any railway car, aircraft, conveyance,
or vehicle and for the purpose of patrolling
the border to prevent the illegal entry of
aliens into the United States.

Mr. HILLINGS. I thank the gentle¬
man. I think the clarification which
the gentleman has made of the amend¬
ment to that section shows that there is
no intention of preventing reasonable
search of border territory in conform¬
ity with the operation of the Immigra¬
tion Service. With that purpose in
mind the amendment is worthy of sup¬
port.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?

Mr. HILLINGS. I yield to the gen¬
tleman from California.

Mr. HUNTER. On what basis would
the arbitrary distance of 25 miles be
fixed? ^ _

Mr. HILLINGS. Perhaps that ques¬
tion had better be directed to the gentle¬
man from Pennsylvania [Mi’. Walter].

Mr. WALTER. The distance of 25
miles was a compromise agreed upon by
the proponents and the opponents of the
bill. It was a distance arbitrarily se¬
lected. In the House omnibus bill it is
“reasonable distance,” but the objection
still exists to the amendment offered
by the gentleman from California TMr.
Phillips], because access to private
lands is not given. That is the im¬
portant part of the whole amendment.
The amendment offered by the gentle¬
man denies access to private land for
patrolling purposes.

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from California has expired.

Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, I was
born and reared 5 miles from the Rio
Grande on the Mexican border. Down
there on the Rio Grande in south Texas
we feel that our private-property rights
are just as sacred and just as much to be
preserved as those in the interior of the
United States.

If we say we are going to require that
search warrants in the interior of the
United States be issued by a recognized
court, then we along the borders are also
entitled to the same right. We have no
objection to patrolling the Rio Grande;
certainly I would agree to an amend¬
ment which left it at 1 mile, because I
can see the necessity for patrolling the
border, but I believe that the present
amendment which sets a 25-mile limit
where border patrolmen can come into
private property without a search war¬
rant is arbitrary. We will find most
border patrolmen are capable and of
good judgment but in a force of that
size some overzealous border patrolmen
will abuse their authority. It would be
a very serious thing to have happen to

those border areas. Over in Russia to¬
day they have set up an iron curtain and
they have condemned the land along the
borders for an area of several miles for
the purpose of catching people going
across. Are we going to do the same
thing here in the United States? Are
we going to violate private property
along the border? Are we who live with¬
in 25 miles of the border to be denied
the rights that citizens in the interior
of the country enjoy? We enjoy our
privacy as much as you do yours. This
legislation without the proposed amend¬
ment is discriminatory.

I know the argument will be made that
they can catch them better in 25 miles
than they can in 1. That may have
been true in years gone by In the horse
and buggy days, but in this age of mod¬
ern transportation a person trying to
cross the border and evade the border
patrol is not limited to the first 25 miles,
for in 30 minutes he can be far into
the interior of the United States. I agree
that they should have authority to patrol
along the Rio Grande to enforce our
laws and to enforce the bill; but there
is no justification to say that those of
us who live as much as 20 or 25 miles
away from the border are without pri¬
vate property rights, but when we sud¬
denly reach a patrol line of 25 miles
once again regain our rights in our pri¬
vate property.

I know that people who live in the
cities sometimes do not realize the sit¬
uation we along the border are up
against, that we too are entitled to the
same property rights. We feel just the
same about our private lands as they
do about their homes, and we do not
want a pistol-toting overzealous border
patrolman abusing our rights and violat¬
ing our private interests; and we very
sincerely ask the sponsors of this dis¬
criminatory legislation to see that we
have the same private rights that you
have in the interior of the United
States, and require that search warrants
issued by a recognized court must be
obtained before they can invade our
private property.

Mr. PHILLIPS. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?

Mr. BENTSEN. I yield.

Mr. PHILLIPS. I want to ask 4he
gentleman from Pennsylvania a ques¬
tion, if I may: Where do you read in
this bill inability to patrol the immediate
area along the border within a reason¬
able distance from any external bound¬
ary for the purpose of patrolling the
border to prevent illegal entry?

Mr. WALTER. It was felt by the
proponents of this legislation that in
view of the action on the part of certain
Texans in resisting patrolmen by using
sawed-off shotguns, rifles, and what not,
that it was necessary to spell out the
right to have access, to ride then’ horses
and their jeeps along over private lands,
and by eliminating this language “the
private lands” if the gentleman’s amend¬
ment is adopted then the right to patrol
the border is certainly limited.

Mr. PHILLIPS. It confines it to a
reasonable distance. I might ask where
the patrolmen were who were being re¬
sisted by the Texans, but I do not think

that has anything to do with the dis¬
cussion.

Mr. BENTSEN. To some extent, this
seems to be aimed at Texans. Let me
cite the case of a Texan, Mr. Cavazos
had a family living in their home; he
had a rather large family, so he had to
house some of them in a garage apart¬
ment. Early one morning his children
were awakened to find some overzealous
border patrolmen were shining lights in
their eyes without any warrant of any
kind. And do not tell me that some of
them will not abuse authority if they
have it, because I have seen it from past
experience. That is why I ask you to see
that we have the same protection as the
rest of the citizens of the United States
have.

Mr. WALTER. Does not the gentle¬
man feel that the language already
adopted is sufficient?

Mr. BENTSEN. No; not in the 25-
mile limit.

(Mr. BENTSEN asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re¬
marks.)

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the amendment offered by the gentle¬
man from California.

The question was taken; and on a divi¬
sion (demanded by Mr. Walter) there
were—ayes 53, noes 48.

Mr. WALTER. Mr. Chairman, I de¬
mand tellers.

Tellers were ordered, and the Chair¬
man appointed as tellers Mr. Walter and
Mr. Phillips.

The Committee again divided; and the
tellers reported there were—ayes 76, noes
81. -

So the amendment was rejected.

Mr. FISHER. Mr. Chairman, I offer
an amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Fisher: On
page 4, line 10, strike out the words “twenty-
five” and insert in lieu thereof “five.”

Mr. FISHER. Mr. Chairman, I hope
the committee is willing to accept this
amendment. In other words, the com¬
mittee having just acted to refuse to
strike out the 25-mile blanket authority
provision to all the patrolmen in the
service, the pretended purpose and ob¬
jective of it being to allow them to patrol
thi border, we now say that it should
be at least within a reasonable distance,
if that is the position the House desires
to maintain. We feel that 5 miles is a
reasonable distance. As has been very
well pointed out here, property rights,
security, the privacy of those who hap¬
pen to own land within a 25-mile radius
of an international border is just as
sacred as that owned by people 1,000
miles away over in Michigan, Ohio, or
any other place in the Nation. Five
miles is enough.

As I have already pointed out, it has
been demonstrated by the patrolmen in
the foot-and-mouth quarantine disease
program along the Rio Grande, that they
have no difficulty whatever; that they
now have legal, implied authority to
patrol the Rio Grande in preventing live¬
stock from coming across. Likewise
there is no question but what the im¬
migration officers new have the implied
authority against illegal aliens coming

1952

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE

1447

across to go on people’s land. They are
doing it every' day, and all this poppy¬
cock here about somebody using a shot¬
gun on somebody, somewhere, at some¬
time, is the kind of a story that could not
withstand a very severe cross examina¬
tion, I am sure. I never heard of such
things in all my life, and I have lived
down there all my life. I never heard
of an instance where immigration offi¬
cers had any difficulty in patrolling along
the river. They have been doing it for
100 years. Now what do they want to
do? They just do not want ordinary
patrol along the Rio Grande; that is not
what they want. The immigration au¬
thorities wrote this language, and not
the committee. They want authority,
a permanent easement for 25 miles, to
send their men day or night, 10 and
20 times a day, if they desire, to break
down a gate or a fence or anything else
in order to carry out their functions
of patrolling the border maybe 25 miles
away from where an event took place.
Now, do you want to give that kind of
blanket, unrestricted authority to a large
group of people to invade the privacy of
people’s own land, their own premises?
They can get a search warrant, which
has already been authorized in this bill,
with practically no showing of probable
cause. But, let them do it according
to law. Let us not give them a perma¬
nent easement, a perpetual right, at all
hours of the day or night, to go on
people’s private property, who happen
to live in that 25-mile area. I dare say
If that authority was extended in your
district, in the Middle West, or in the
North, or any place else, you sure would
be in here fighting this kind of a, thing
giving them permanent privileges to go
on your land day or night. You know,
on the ranches in the country of the
Rio Grande people raise sheep and goats.
During the lambing and kidding sea¬
sons—as I have already pointed out in
general debate—it is a custom—and a
necessary one—to lock the gates and
keep even their neighbors out. Just
driving through a pasture during those
times disturbs the livestock, separates
the young animals from their mothers,
and heavy losses usually result.

Perhaps that does not mean much to
you in the East because your constit¬
uents are not affected, but mine are. It
is important.

It is not a matter of giving the border
patrol the authority to enforce the im¬
migration laws against illegal aliens.
They can go along there for a distance
of 5 miles without any kind of search
warrant. So I beg of you in this in¬
stance, at least, let us compromise this
particular authorization to bring it
within reasonable limitations and put it
at a distance of 5 miles. It has already
been said that the 25 miles was purely
arbitrary, something picked out of a
clear sky. It was put in by a compromise
and set by somebody over in the other
body. Let us take it out by a compromise
and, in this body, put it down within
reason.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to be able
to vote for this bill, but I cannot with
these objectionable and unnecessary pro¬
visions in it. If the objectionable pro¬
visions were removed there would still
be ample authority for necessary en¬
forcement of laws against illegal aliens.

Mr. WALTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise
in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I personally think that
the language should be “reasonable dis¬
tance,” but apparently there is so much
opposition to anything as vague as that
that I will not propose any amendment.
However, we must bear in mind this fact
in fixing the limit at 5 miles. These aliens
are not congregated close to the border,
they are spread way up into the State.
It is necessary for our border patrol men
to go over the lands leading to the trunk
highways. There are many small feeder
roads these people get on that the border
patrol men never get on. It is essential
that the border patrol men be given the
authority to go across the lands to get
onto those feeder roads to apprehend
people on the way up t 9 move over to
the trunk highways.

Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise
in support of the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I will make this short.
If the majority of the Committee here
today has made up its mind to discrimi¬
nate against private property rights in
border districts, I ask you if you will
please cut the discrimination of those
property rights from 25 miles to 5 miles.
The Border Patrol will be well able to do
their job despite that cut. I urge you
to support the amendment.

Mr. MORRIS. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?

Mr. BENTSEN. I yield to the gentle¬
man from Oklahoma.

Mr. MORRIS. It is my understand¬
ing from the committee, and I should
like to have a clarification if it is not
true, that the search warrant provision
as adopted by the majority as applicable
to section (c) would also apply to clause
2 on page 4.

Mr. BENTSEN. No, that is not my
understanding. If that were the case,
why would they have the 25 miles?

Mr. FISHER. Mr. Chairman, my at¬
tention has just been called to the fact
that by inadvertence the amendment I
offered proposes to strike the words
“twenty-five” from line 9 instead of line
10 on page 4 of the bill. It seems there
are two versions of this bill, which has
caused the confusion. I ask unanimous
consent that my amendment be changed
to apply to line 10 instead of line 9.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
Texas?

There was no objection.

Mr. McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, I
rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I agree with the com¬
mittee position that the “reasonable-dis¬
tance clause” should be retained in the
bill. I think we should remember that
the border between Texas and Mexico is
not the only land border that we are con¬

cerned about in this bill; that the whole
northern half of the United States bord¬
ers on Canada. The State of Minnesota,
for example, has a northern border,
which in some places is entirely swamp
land and lake so that over a distance of
25, 50, or 100 miles, it is impossible to
adequately patrol the border. I think
that the 25-mile limitation is a reason¬
able compromise, and that it should be
retained in this bill.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Texas [Mr. Fisher].

The question was taken; and on a di¬
vision (demanded by Mr. Fisher) there
were—ayes 38, noes 70.

So the amendment was rejected.

The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the
Committee rises.

The SPEAKER. Under the rule, the
previous question is ordered.

Is a separate vote demanded on any
amendment? If not, the Chair will put
them en gross.

The amendments were agreed to.

The SPEAKER. The question is on
the third reading of the bill.

The bill was ordered to be read a third
time, and was read the third time.

The SPEAKER. The question is on
the passage of the bill.

The question was taken; and on a divi¬
sion (demanded by Mr. Fisher) there
were—ayes 162, noes 10.

Mr. FISHER. Mr. Speaker, I object
to the vote on the ground that a quorum
is not present, and I make the point of
order that a quorum is not present.

The SPEAKER. The Chair will count.

Mr. FISHER. Mr. Speaker, I with¬
draw the point of order.

So the bill was passed.

A motion to reconsider was laid on
the table. — ^^ ii—

(Mr. SHELLEY asked and was given
permission to insert his remarks in the
Record immediately preceding consid¬
eration of amendments on the bill S.
1851.) \

RESIGNATION FROM COMMITTEE

The SPEAKER laid before the House
the following communication:

February 26, 1952.

Hon. Sam Rayburn,

Speaker, Home of Representatives,
Washington, D. C.

Dear Mr. Speaker: I herewith submit my
resignation as a member of the Committee
on Interior and Insular Affairs to take effect
Immediately.

Sincerely yours,

Sidney A. Fine.

No. 29- 8

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE February 26

1448

The SPEAKER. Without objection,
the resignation is accepted.

There was no objection.

ELECTION TO STANDING COMMITTEE OP
THE HOUSE

Mr. DOUGHTON. Mr. Speaker, I
offer a resolution (H. Res. 535) which I
send to the desk.

The Clerk read the resolution, as fol¬
lows:

Resolved, That Sidney A. Fine of New
York, be, and he is hereby, elected a member
of the standing Committee of the House
of Representatives on the Judiciary,

The resolution was agreed to.

A motion to reconsider was laid on the
table.

SPECIAL ORDER GRANTED

Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Speaker,
March 4 is the two hundred and fourth,
anniversary of*the birth of Gen. Casimir
Pulaski. I ask unanimous consent that
the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Din-
gellI, after disposition of the legislative
business of the day and other matters on
the Speaker’s desk, may have permission
to address the House for 1 hour, and that
he may have control of the time and
may yield to other Members.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Mas¬
sachusetts?

There was no objection.

CORRECTION OF RECORD

Mr. CELLER. Mr. Speaker, on page
1378 the Record indicates that I quoted
exactly the provisions of the Constitu¬
tion which confer authority and power
on the Congress to legislate. In the
form of paragraphs I set forth certain
powers delegated to Congress, but as pre¬
pared the Record reflects improperly
what I said in the sense that the Record
carries as a quotation the statement
“Congress shall have the power concern¬
ing immigration or importation of per¬
sons,” and indicating that those words
were a direct quotation from the Con¬
stitution.

I uttered those words yesterday as an
indication only that the Constitution has
given the power to Congress concerning
the immigration or importation of per¬
sons. It was not an exact quotation from
the Constitution.

NATIONAL SECURITY TRAINING CORPS
ACT

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, by direction
of the Committee on Rules, I call up
House Resolution 528 and ask for its im¬
mediate consideration.

The Clerk read the resolution, as
follows:

bill for amendment, the Committee shall
rise and report the bill to the House with
such amendments as may have been adopted
and the previous question shall be considered
as ordered on the bill and amendments
thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except one motion to recommit.

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30
minutes to the gentleman from Illinois
[Mr. Allen],, and yield myself such time
as I may use.

Mr. Speaker, by way of suggestion to
the Committee on the Armed Services, I
should like to say that that committee
will have to carry the burden of com¬
batting the argument that is being heard
in the cloakrooms now that this measure
is expected to be used as an Anna Rosen¬
berg social integration scheme.

We are here being called upon to make
an important decision. The question is
not whether this is the kind of legisla¬
tion that we want, but it is whether it
is the legislation that necessity demands.
To make a political issue out of the meas¬
ure would be a discreditable thing to do.
It would be playing fast and loose with
the most precious thing we possess, our
liberty. To beat our swords into plow¬
shares might be excusable procedure
after war has ended and all danger
passed, but it would be an act of self-
destruction if done in time of deadly
conflict. If to make surrender there
went with it a reasonable hope of sur¬
vival, then there might be some excuse
for the cowards, but even these should
know that to those arrayed against us,
mercy and compassion are virtues that
are unknown.

Mr. Speaker, we are in the midst of a
world conflict between atheistic pagan¬
ism on the one hand and Christian civil¬
ization on the other, and the role that
we are playing is by no means inconsid¬
erable. Under the compulsion of the
law of self-preservation, we are expend¬
ing the lives of the young manhood of
the country and billions of our national
resources, all believed to be necessary to
national survival. In making up our
minds as to what we should do, it might
be well to take into consideration the
attitude of those with whom we are at
war. Does any one doubt that there is
a Communist or a Communist sympa¬
thizer who does not want to see this
measure fail of adoption? I cast no re¬
flection upon the millions of Christian
and right-motived people who oppose
compulsory military training. They are
so much entitled to their views as I am
to mine. I simply think they do not see
the picture in its entirety, and therefore
do not realize the deadly peril that hangs
over our heads—a drawn sword in the
iron hand of a spiritual and blood de¬
scended of Genghis Khan.

Is there any doubt anywhere about the
designs of Russia? Witness what has
happened during the last several years.
Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Pofand, Bul¬
garia, Rumania, Hungary, Albania,
Czechoslovakia, and Eastern Germany
have disappeared behind the iron cur¬
tain. Witness what Russia has done to
China and is attempting to do to India,
and what she is doing to undermine the
still free governments of Europe and the
countries of North and South America.
Her minions are everywhere. Her Jong

and sinewy tentacles are fast drawing
into her ravenous maw the entire world.

Are there those who, in the face of
this record, still contend that to r^f’er
to what has happened and is going ch is
to try to create hysteria and stampede
the adoption of this measure? To those
who still doubt, who hesitate, let me ask:
Has not Stalin in Korea already “opened
the purple testament of bleeding war”
in which the flower of our young Ameri¬
can manhood is dying? What more is
needed that the people realize that the
security of all mankind is in peril, that
the life of the Republic is in jeopardy?
How can we afford to longer rely upon
reason and moral suasion? Is it safe to
merely hope and pray for the restora¬
tion of reason and sanity before we go
the way of Poland and the Ukraine?

The fact that we have never lost a
war does not mean that we cannot lose
one. Ours is a great country, but as
mighty and powerful as it is, it is not
strong enough to contend with the rest
of the world organized against us, which
means that it would be suicidal for us
to draw within our own shell. We either
go forward or we perish.

What of the military power of the
Soviet Union? It is widely known that
in land power the Russians have 4,000,-
000 soldiers, with 15,000,000 reservists
maintained on a war footing; that she
has at her command a million European
satellite troops and 4,000,000 highly
trained and highly disciplined Chinese.
She has more than 50,000 heavy tanks,
with a productive capacity of 90,000 an¬
nually, and is capable of producing 350,-
000 pieces of artillery annually. A year
ago Russia could produce 900,000 ma¬
chine guns each year, and had the ex¬
pectation of increasing this to 1,350,000
annually. It is estimated that by 1955
she can produce 15,000,000 small arms
annually and 22,000,000,000 bullets an¬
nually—and here I should like to point
out that we never approached these fig¬
ures in the peak of our production in
World War II—and, what is extremely
important, it can be done with half as
much steel as is available to America.

The Russian ground forces are ex¬
ceedingly formidable and will become
steadily more so as time passes on. Their
armored vehicles are excellent; the te¬
nacity of their soldiers is superb; their
numbers are tremendous; and their geo¬
graphical' location in the heartland of
Europe and Asia gives them an impres¬
sive strategic advantage, especially since,
from the Russian viewpoint, Western
Europe is little more than a peninsula
extending from Russia proper—but a
peninsula which will more than double
Russian production if it falls into Rus¬
sian hands—a production which, added
to Russia’s, would overwhelm even the
vaunted industrial might of America and
make our doom follow as surely as day
follows night.

As to Russian aerial strength, it is
estimated that they have from 25,000
to 30,000 aircraft, with a potential an¬
nual production of approximately 80,000.
This can be increased to approximately
120,000 annually by 1955, even though
we thought our top aircraft production
of 96,000 annually in the last \\ar was

*•

jOF

OFFICE OF BUDGET AND FINANCE
(For Department Staff Only)

Adjournment. 7

Agricultural imports ....16

Electrification.,.19

Electrification, rural....2

Foreign affairs, aid.17

Import controls.12,l6

Labor, farm.1

INTEREST TO THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

CONTENTS

Legislative program.6

Metals.. .. il4

Military training.8,20

Organ! zat ion, 1 egislativel5.

Personnel.5*9

Poultry.4

Issued Fek. 29, 1952
For actions of Fek. 28, 1952
£2nd-2nd, No* 3!

Prices, ...11

controls.18

farm. *........ 4

support.. 16

Territories and

possessions..3*10

Trade, foreign... .12,14,16

HIGHLIGHTS: Senate asked for conference on wet ka.cks-entry kill. House debated mil¬
itary-training kill. House committee reported kill for loyalty investigations ky
CSC. San. Butler, ITekr., commended REA program.

SENATE

1 .

FARM LABOR*, i Sens, .Kilgore, Eastland, Magnus on, Ferguson, and Jenner were appoint¬
ed conferees on S. 1851, to assist in preventing aliens from entering or remain-
in the U* S. illegally (p.,lG02). House conferees have not yet keen appointed*

RURAL ELECTRIFICATION, Sen^ _ Butler,., ITekr,, commended the rural-electrification ^
'ogram and especially its accomplishments in ITekr, duripg recent years (p-
lbTsa4).

PUERTO RICoJv Sen, Johnston, S. C,, criticized the Interior Dep^tment for not.
appointing a coordinator of Federal agencies in Puerto Rico^*oursuant to a
recent law, although, he also inserted Interior's letter^tfXDlaining the matter*
Several other Senators'Njiscr-’s sod the situation. (p_p<k'Tcl5~13o)'

EC-G PRICES. Sen* Langer inserted, a USDA letter which he has received regarding
egg prices and criticized a statement in the letter to the effect that prices
generally reach their low point in Fpfe> and M a r. (p. lS02).

PERSONNEL. Sen. Langer s gfd. amendment s^wiiich he intends, to propose to S.

354, to amend existing ] pending overtime p^y.^and holiday employment (p*

l602).

LEGISLATIVE PK£JJ3SSM* No action was taken on Sen. McFarlaniTSs^motion to consider
the tidelands-oil kill. Several Senators insisted that the Hawaii statehood
kill Beaconsidered instead. Sen. McFarland said, "I understand tldaut a motion
>e made to reconsider the vote ky which die Senate agreed to... recommit...
Alaska statehood kill." (p. l6l8.)

RECESSED until Mon., Mar. 2 (p. 1 S 27 ).

HOUSE

S. KELIEABY TRAINING. Continued debate on H. R. 59^4, the universal military traiiv-
and service Mil (pp. 1631-54). /

PERSOUHEL. The Post Office and Civil Service Committee reported xnthout amend¬
ment NS. 2077 > to provide for loyalty investigations "by the Civil Service Com¬
mission in lieu of the RBI (H., Rept. 1449) (pp. l657~S).

10. PUERTO RICSl Rep. Flood, Pa., criticized the regulations and "lossely inter¬
preted lawiH* pertaining to Puerto Rico and objected to "irresponsible" expend¬
iture of American taxpayers* money by the administration of Puerto Rico. He

said that if uhe present policy of luring industry to Puerto Rico from New
England and the South by exemption and low wages continues., Congress should
reexamine its -ooi'|tical and economic responsibilities to Puerto Rico.(pp. 1656 -
7 -). ‘ \

\ /

11 . PRICES. The "Daily Digest" states that "a subcommittee 0 $ the Judiciary Com¬

mittee decided to repoNsd; out a bill to extend the faiiptrade laws to nonsigners
The exact language of tlmq proposed bill was not determined#" (p. Dl4S.)

BUDS INTRODUCED

12. IMPORT CONTROLS. H. R. 6o43, by Rep. Ramsay, W. fa., to establish quotas on

the importation of certain articles and produejsb containing raw materials x^ith
respect to which priorities havo\been established or allocations made under
the Defense Production Act of 195T^ to Banking and Currency Committee (p. 1658 )

13 . FLOOD CONTROL. H. R. 6g44, by Rep. TTtpmpsbn, Mich., directing a survey, exam¬
ination, and recommendation for flood \phtrol and drainage projects in the

Ninth Congressional District of Mich

Public Works Committee (p. 1658 ).

14. METALS. H. R. 6&45, by Rep. Walter, Pa., t\ continue until the close of June

30, 1953, the suspension of duties and import taxes on metal scrap; to Ways and
Means Committee (p. 165 &).

15. LEGISLATIVE REORGANIZATION. 1U Con. Res. 201, bj^Jtep. Celler, N. T., to estab

lish a Joint Committee on thb Organization of the'.Congress; to Rules Committee

(p. l 65 g).

ITEIS IN APPENDIX

1 6 . AGRICULTURAL IMPORTS. Sen. Thye inserted a letter from MX¥« Thatcher, general

manager of the Farmers Union Grain Terminal Associatian, criticizing the import
of agricultural commodities from Canada on xvhich a price—s upport is in effect
in the U. S. (pp. A1227“S).

17 . FOREIGN AID. Rep. Reed, N. Y., inserted a Buffalo (N.Y.) Evening News article,

"Why United States A.id to Europe Is a Failure" (pp. A12S0—l).

jjr

IS. PRICE CONTROLS. Rep. Poulson, Calif., inserted a letter from a staff member of
Food Topics magazine explaining the background of an article published by them
on the CPS price-testing program (p. A129S).

19 . ELECTRIC POWER. Rep. Miller, IT. Y., inserted a N. Y. State Association of Elec¬
trical Workers resolution, a Sidney (N. Y.) Chamber of Commerce resolution, and
4 Beaumont (Ca.lif.) Gazette article favoring the hyd.roelectric potential of
/Niagara Falls by private enterprise (pp. A1220, A1231—2, A 12 S 3 ).

United States
of America

Congressional Ttecord

PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 82^CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION

Vol. 98 WASHINGTON, THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 1952 No. 31

Senate

(.Legislative day of Monday, February 25, 1952 )

•- 'The Senate met at 12 o’clock meridian,
on £h£ expiration of the recess.

RevSF. Norman Van Brunt, associate
pastor. Foundry Methodist Church,
Washington, D. C., offered the following
prayer:

Almighty God our Father, who art
filled' with compassion and tender mercy
toward us, we thank Thee that each day
is a new beginning. In its possibilities
we revel, for its potential blessings we
are grateful, and even in it£> problems we
see the benefits of Thy hand. Through¬
out its horns may we think with dili¬
gence and act with dispatch that, what¬
ever may come of bane or blessing, we
may be qualified in spirit to meet it as
men and triumph through it or over it
as we serve our fellow men. Amen.

THE JOURNAL

On request of Mr. McFarland, and by
unanimous consent, the reading of the
Journal of the proceedings of Wednes¬
day, February 27, 1952, was dispensed
with.

MESSAGES FROM THE PRESIDENT

Messages in writing from the President
of the United States submitting nomina¬
tions were communicated to the Senate
by Mr. Miller, one of his secretaries.

MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE

A message from the House of Repre¬
sentatives, by Mr. Maurer, one of its
reading clerks, announced that the
House had passed a joint resolution (H.
J. Res. 382) to provide for setting aside
an appropriate day as a National Day ,of
Prayer, in which it requested the tfm-
currence of the Senate.

LEAVE OF ABSENCE.

On request of Mr. Willems, and by
unanimous consent, Mr. Aiken was ex¬
cused from attendance on the sessions
of the Senate today and tomorrow.
COMMITTEE MEETING DURING SENATE

.Session

On request of Mr. Hoey, and by unani¬
mous consent, the Subcommittee on In¬
vestigations of the Committee on Ex¬
penditures in the Executive Departments
was/authorized to hold a hearing this
afternoon during the session of the Sen-

CALL OF THE ROLL

Mr. McFARLAND. Mr. President, I
suggest the absence of a quorum.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The
clerk will call the roll.

The Chief Clerk proceeded to call the
roll.

Mr. McFARLAND. Mr. President, I
ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be vacated, and that
further proceedings under the call be
dispensed with.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. With¬
out objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. McFARLAND, Mr. KEM, Mr.
.CAIN, and Mr. KILGORE addressed the
Chair.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The
Senator from Arizona is recognized.

TRANSACTION OF ROUTINE BUSINESS

Mr. McFARLAND. Mr. President,
yesterday evening when I made the mo¬
tion to recess I offered to yield to the
distinguished Senator from Missouri
[Mr. Kem] for 5 minutes, or a reason¬
able time. He evidently did not hear the
“reasonable time.” My reason for not
yielding the floor at that time was that
three Senators who were present were
under the care of physicians. I knew
that the motion to take a recess would
be resisted, and that a vote would be
necessary. I am perfectly willing that
the Senator from Missouri shall have the
floor. I think he is entitled to the floor
to make his speech. I wish to be fair at
all times with Senators on both sides of
the aisle.

Before the Senator from Missouri
speaks, if he does not object, I should like
to ask unanimous consent that Senators
be permitted to make insertions in the
Record and to transact other routine
business, without debate.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. With¬
out objection, it is so ordered.
PROPOSED GARRISON RESERVOIR ROAD

RELOCATION—RESOLUTION OF BOARD

OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, WILLIAMS

COUNTY, N. DAK.

Mr. LANGER. Mr. President, I pre¬
sent for appropriate reference, and ask
unanimous consent to have printed in the
Record, a resolution adopted by the
Board of County Commissioners of Wil¬

liams County, Williston, N. Dak., favor¬
ing in principle the proposed Garrison
Reservoir road-relocation plan.

I call attention to the fact that if the
dam is left at the high level, it will mean
that the city of Williston will have to be
diked in order to keep it from being
flooded.

There being no objection, the resolu¬
tion was referred to the Committee on
Public Works and ordered to be printed
in the Record, as follows:

Resolution

Whereas the Corps of Engineers has pro¬
posed, a program of relocation of roads in
the areas of Williams County to be affected
by the operation of the reservoir of the Gar¬
rison Dam; and

Whereas a substantial portion of such pro¬
gram will be required by a maximum normal
operating pool level of 1,830 feet above sea
level; and

Whereas the proposed relocation program
will be implemented by the Federal Govern¬
ment substantially without any cost what¬
ever to Williams County, and such program
is compatible with a maximum normal op¬
erating pool level of 1,830 feet above sea
level; and

Whereas we have heretofore, on several
occasions, expressed our steadfast opposition
to the operation of the maximum normal
pool level of such reservoir at an elevation
higher than 1,830 feet above sea level; and

Whereas we stand firm in our conviction
that a higher maximum normal pool level
of such reservoir is wholly unnecessary and
is detrimental to the interests of this area
and should be vigorously opposed; and

Whereas we believe the proposed road-relo¬
cation program will materially improve the
system of county highways in Williams
County and thereby reduce road-building
expense to Williams County: Now, therefore,
be it

Resolved by the Board of County Commis¬
sioners of Williams County, N. Dak., That
we do hereby approve in principle the Pro¬
posed Garrison Reservoir road-relocation
plan submitted by the Corps of Engineers,
but without obligation on the part of Wil¬
liams County to contribute financially to the
construction phases thereof, and without
withdrawing our firm and unaltered opposi¬
tion to the operation of the maximum nor¬
mal pool level of such reservoir in excess of
1,830 feet above sea level; and be it further

Resolved, That a copy of this resolution
be mailed to the Senators and Representa¬
tives in Congress from the State of North
Dakota and to the district office of the Corps
of Engineers.

1601

1602

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE

BILLS INTRODUCED

Bills were introduced, read the firsjt
time, and, by unanimous consent, the
second time, and referred as follovyS:

By Mr. BUTLER of Nebraska:

S. .2760. A bill for the relief of Tokuko
Kobayashi and her minor son; and

S. 2761. A bill for the relief of Norma J.
Roberts; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. McCARRAN:

S. 2702. A bill for the relief of Pedro Gio-
coechea Bengoechea; to the Committee on
the Judiciary.

By Mr. LANGER:

S. 2763. A bill for the relief of Harry Ray
Smith; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. SCHOEPPEL;

S. 2764. A bill for the relief of Ellenor
Carola Jones; to the Committee on the Judi¬
ciary.

COMPENSATION FOR OVERTIME AND
HOLIDAY EMPLOYMENT—AMENDMENTS

Mr. LANGER submitted amendments
intended to be proposed by him to the
bill (S. 354) to amend Public Law 106,
Seventy-ninth Congress, with regard to
compensation for overtime and holiday
employment; which were referred to the
Committee on Post Office and Civil Serv¬
ice, and ordered to be printed.

HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION REFERRED

The joint resolution (H. J. Res. 382) to
provide for setting, aside an appropriate
day as a National Day of Prayer, was
read twice by its title, and referred to the
Committee on the Judiciary.

ADDRESSES, EDITORIALS, ARTICLES, ETC.,

PRINTED IN THE APPENDIX

On request, and by unanimous consent,
addresses, editorials, articles, etc., were
ordered to be printed in the Appendix, as
follows:

By Mr. CAIN:

Address delivered by him before the Indus¬
trial Conference Board, Tacoma, Wash., on
February 25, 1952.

By Mr. THYE:

Letter addressed to him by the general
manager of the Farmers Union Grain Termi¬
nal Association with respect to the importa¬
tion of certain agricultural commodities.

By Mr. LEHMAN:

Copy of letter written by Harold F. Hohly,
rector of Christ Church, Bronx, N. Y., to
Daniel E. Woodhull, Jr., on the subject of
Americanism.

By Mr. WILEY:

Resolution of the Association of Wisconsin
County Highway Commissioners relating to
the use of structural steel in highway con¬
struction.

Booklet by E. J. Reid entitled “Why We
Should Vote in All Elections.”

PREVENTION OF ILLEGAL ENTRANCE OF
ALIENS

The PRESIDENT pro tempore laid be¬
fore the Senate the amendments of the
House of Representatives to the bill (S.
1851) to assist in preventing aliens from
entering or remaining in the United
States illegally, which were, on page 3,
lines 8 and 9, strike out “of the United
States”, and on page 3, line 15, strike out
“issue his warrant” and insert “obtain
a warrant under oath from any court of
competent jurisdiction.”

Mr. KILGORE. Mr. President, I
move that the Senate disagree to the
amendments of the House, ask a con¬
ference with the House on the disagree¬
ing votes of the two Houses thereon.

and that the Chair appoint the con¬
ferees on the part of the Senate.

The motion was agreed to.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The
Chair will appoint the conferees on the
part of the Senate later today.

Subsequently, the President pro tem¬
pore appointed Mr. Kilgore, Mr. East-
land, Mr. Magntjson, Mr. Ferguson, and
Mr. Jenner conferees on the part of the
Senate.

PRICES OF EGGS AND FEED

Mr. LANGER. Mr. President, for
some time I have been reading letters
into the Record showing that the farm¬
ers in the Northwest are not getting ade¬
quate prices for their eggs. I took the
matter up with the Department of Agri¬
culture to find out why the farmers were
not getting at least parity for their eggs.
I have received the following letter,
under date of February 19;

Department of Agriculture,

1 Washington, February 19, 1952,

Hon. William Larger,

Unitea\.States Senate.

Dear Senator: This is in reference to a
letter from Mr. Edward Matzke, Marion, N.
Dak., which you inserted in the Congres¬
sional Record of February 7. Mr. Matzke
writes of low farm prices for eggs and high
prices for feed.

During January prices of eggs in all parts
of the country averaged 81 percent of parity
which is about the same percentage of parity
that existed in January 195l\ In February
or March farm prices generally reach their
low point of the year. It is hoped that some
improvement in farm prices will soon take
place as the demand for eggs for storage
purposes, in shell and frozen form\and for
hatching purposes increases

The low egg prices now being receii^d are
of particular concern to poultrymem. be

February 28

cause of the relatively high level of feed
prices. It is unlikely that the price of f4§d
will decline in the near future, perhaps n<
until after the harvest of 1952, and th
only if the harvest is a plentiful one.

We are making a day-to-day study of
trends in egg and feed prices. As yet, how¬
ever, no decision has been made with respect
to the removal of surplus eggs in 1952.

Sincerely yours,

K. T. Hutchinson,
Assistant Secretary.

I wish to invite the attention of the
Senate to the fact that the distinguished
Assistant Secretary is mistaken as to the
price of eggs being low at this time of
year. As a matter of fact, all over the
Northwest farmers get more for their
eggs in the winter time than they do
in the summer. I wish particularly to
call this letter to the attention of the
distinguished junior Senator from New
Hampshire [Mr. TobeyI, who stated the
other day that he thought egg prices
were about right.

MINERAL LEASES ON CERTAIN SUB¬
MERGED LANDS

The Senate ■ resumed the considera¬
tion of the motion of Mr. McFarland
that the Senate proceed to the consid¬
eration of Senate Joint Resolution 20, to
provide for the continuation of opera¬
tions under certain mineral leases is¬
sued by the respective States covering
submerged lands of the Continental
Shelf, to encourage the continued de¬
velopment of such leases, to provide for
the protection of the interests of the

United States in the oil and gas deposits
of said lands, and for other purposes. J
ORDER OF BUSINESS j

Mr. BUTLER of Nebraska. Mr. pres¬
ident, I ask unanimous consent tjj ad¬
dress the Senate for 2 minutes. F
Mr. KEM. Mr. President, I hinder -
stood that I was to have the floor today.

The PRESIDENT pro tempoiu. That
is correct. The Senator from Missouri
will be recognized when the transaction
of routine business has been concluded.
Does the Senator from Missouri object
to the request of the Senator from Ne¬
braska? /

Mr. KEM. Other Senators have made
similar requests. I cannot accede to
the request of my friend, the Senator
from Nebraska, unless I similarly agree
to yield to my friend, the Senator from
Delaware [Mr. Williams!. I would pre¬
fer to proceed, and ask that the distin- -
guished Senator from Nebraska follow
me with his remarks.

PEACE OR MORE WAR
1. the tyranny of a majority

Mr. KEM. Mr. President, Mr. Tru¬
man, on Jyne 27, 1950, announced that
he had ordered American forces into war
in Korea. He had the power to do so,
but he ty'd not have the right.

Yesterday, February 27, 1952, 1 year
and 8 months to the day after Mr. Tru¬
man’s action, the majority leadership
had the power to impose gag rule in the
Senate Chamber, but it did not have the
right.

The Senator from Connecticut [Mr.
McMahon] had made certain sarcastic
e observations pertaining to me. Fair play
- ' c

demanded that I be given an opportunity
to answer. Yet immediately after the
Senator from Connecticut had con¬
cluded, the Senator from Arizona [Mr.
McFarland! proceeded to choke off fur¬
ther debate. He had the power to do so,
but not the right. Right and truth are
greater than power. All power is lim¬
ited by right.

Government by a chosen few—a pal¬
ace guard from the ranks of the Senate—
is an oligarchy. ' It is not a republic.

The beautiful monument to Thomas
Jefferson on the shore of the Tidal Basin
here in Washington is visited each year
by thousands of our people. Engraved
there in unperishable marble are the
words;

I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal
hostility against every form of tyranny over
the mind of man.

These words were spoken by Mr. Jef¬
ferson early in his career. How stead¬
fastly he adhered to this concept is
known by all who are interested in our
history and our institutions.

It is of no importance that yesterday
in the Senate I felt the whiplash of the
tyranny of a majority. It is of great
importance for the American people to
know to what extent what was formerly
the party of Mr. Jefferson has departed
from his teachings, and the consider¬
ation for the rights of others, that so
long characterized its leadership.

One hears that the shrine of the Dem¬
ocrat Party has recently been moved
from Monticello to the Hermitage. If

0 CONGRESSIONAL
PROCEEDINGS

OF INTEREST TO THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

OFFICE OF BUDGET AND FINANCE
(For Department Staff Only)

CONTENTS

Issued March 5, 1552
For actions of March 4, 1952
82nd-2nd, No. 34

Alaska. Statehood . . .

Fl ood Control. . ...

■'OUT Not,! AD . ^

1 n

A'Tnromria.t ions .

. 4

Foreigmi Aid.

*P r> r* rvn t. q - 1 .

_r. in

Budgeting ...

Forest Products...

Connl t, tee .

Qvr i'n St n mm . . . . .

. l g

Purchasing .

River Basin De-

...17

Consumer s * Counc il .,

. 15

Labor, Farm .

Cotton .

Legislative Progra
L eg i si at i Tr e Reo r ga
I i i 1 it ary T re ining .

n ...... 4 , '1

El ectric Power. ....,

nization l4

. 1.19

r 00

Farm Prices ..

. 11 , 12,26

Transportation. .•

...16

Veterans f Benefits.*13

HIGHLIGHTS: House recommitted military tTraining hill. House sent wetbacks-entry
hill to conference. House suheo:v.’ittec reported hill to reneal provision -oernit-
ting CCC purchase for oil of uemuts in excess of marketing quotas. Senator
Johnston reported on study of Tc'eral manpower policies.

HOUSE

lXi^LITARY TRAINING. By a 236-162 vote, recommitted to committee E. R. 59^4, the
r ersal military training and service hill (pp. 1849-85)*

2 . FARM LABOR. Reus. Celler, Walter, and Graham v r ere appointed House conferees on
S. 1851, to assist in preventing aliens from entering or remaining in the U. S,
illegally (p. 1845). Senate conferees were appointed Feb. 28.

MtNMMnaMMtJK

T---

FLOOD CONTROL. The Flood Control Subcommittee of the Puh^tc Works Committee
amoroved, for reporting to the full committee, review resolutions for Wolf River,
Tenn.; Kikosing River, 0hi5s: Zumbro River, Minn.* Y^okin—Pee Dee River, N. C.
and S. C.; and various Missouri Basin watersheds (p. Dl 6 S).

X /

4. LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM. The Majority DS^der announced that there is no further uro¬
gram for this week and that the deficloggy appropriation hil l will proba-bly he
debated Tues. (p. 1885).

SENATE

5. PEANUTS. The Agr iculturp-'and Forestry Committee reported without amendment S.

2697> to amend the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 s\r.s to repeal the pro¬
vision author!zing^oCC to -ourchase for crushing for oil, aX^version program,
dr for seed -oepamts grown in excess of marketing quotas (S. R§p.t. 1254) (p. 1813)

6 . PERSONNEL. Sen. Johnston reported on the findings to date of the Subcommittee

of thpifost Office a.nd Civil Service Committee in its study of Federa .1 manpower
policies. He reported specifically on reduction-in-force procedures, utilize-
on of manpower in the Department of Defense, methods in Government for select-

.Xing : supervisors, the incent ive-awards program,. the. effectiveness of the Whit/
en amendment,'.and procedures, for recruiting and selecting personnel. He said
the .shortcomings in the Federal” personnel- system stem from three main cau^st
’"'ObsolGtq arid cumbersome nrocoh.rcs, .lack of sufficient incentives for adminis¬
trators end supervisors to economise, and the 'failure of the executive branch
J;to do-yepLop and. plan a.;.comproh.cnsive manpower budget." /

Some of his conclusions in the specific studies hre as follows: / Lay-off
- -procedure^ . Che costs of laying off Government workers are- exactssiv’e-f- the ...,

■ Government as losing many of its most efficient and highly skilled workers;

* supervisors Resist economy in the use cf manpower’dub to ’ the adverse' effect

of the lay-off -procedures on the operating efficiency of their /nits; the bump-
... . ing-process' off^pn amounts- to- the restaffing of any agency, by reassigning em-
. • -ploy.ees. to new .yobs-;. the Government'.often cannot attract .new,employees, or re-
.. hire former worked-,. as a. result of its reduction-.in-force. /oliciie.s.

. . . . .Selecting supervisors- ., . The. Government is not obtaining, the best available per¬
sonnel for sumervi.soW. -positions because the. factors .emphasized iri selection
... are such that supervisor^/-.potential is often overlooked^ .seniority. has been unr-
.. duly emphasized; there \s' a tendency to fill supervisory vacancies from- within
.. the -particular section. iW which the vacancies occur;/and undue, emphasis has bee
-placed on the personal knc^le&go of a candidate.

/hitten amendment . "Our inquiry to date convince/us that a real question h
been raised as to whether thVWb.it ten amendment has provided a. barrier to the
effective utilization of personnel." "The preponderance-of opinion expressed
by Federal personnel officials V-d union officials is that the Whitten rider
should bo repealed.P
Recruiting and selecting -personnel^ Field .recruiting is expensive and there
has been overlap-ping coverage in th\ sane/ .areas by various traveling recruit-,
ing teams; -personalized recruiting (supq^rmisors relying on their personal con¬
tacts) restricts competition to a ch s^h few and brings with it "the danger of
personal -patronage;” and a number of /p^acics have indicated reluctance to re-

• ly upon-Commission registers as their source of new personnel.

* . f Jr

f x

7. FOREIGN AID. Vice President Barkley inserted, a letter he had received from the
President urging Congress to authorize additional T JV S. contributions of up to
$12,000,000 for the U. IT.’ Chilton- 1 s Fmergency^ind, fiscal year -1953 Op* 1812 )

g. LEGISLATIVE ACCaiPilSI-aiELITS. /Sen. Lehman reviewed!the accomplishments of the
Democratic Party in the pa/ 19 years, and Sen. Carlson inserted a statement
on the contributions 'of Republican Party (pp 18^.6-23) •

9. TAXATION. Received a Hass. Legislature memorial urging Congress to place a .
ceiling on the Federal Government’s mower to impose taxc^ (p. 1813).

/ - V ::

10. 1T0MINATI01T. Confirmed the nomination of Watson B. Miller tc be a-member of the
Subversive Activities Control Board (p. 1844). , \

BILLS INTRODUCED

11. PEANUTS. H. R. 6893, by Rep. Widkersham, Okla., to provide , for a minimum price
sup-port for the 1952 crop of peanuts at 90 percent of parity; to Agriculture
Committee, (p. I890). ' \

12. COTTO'
for

IT./ H, R. 6894, by Rem. Wickershan, to increase the minimum price support
tHe 1952 crop of cotton; to Agriculture Committee (p. -1390).

13. VET/lAiTS’ BENEFITS. H. R. 6895* by Rep. Rankin, Miss., to provide readjustment
mefits to certain persons who served in the Armed Forces on or after June 27,
[950 j and prior to such date as shall be fixed by the President or the Congress

House of Representatives

The House met at 12 o’clock noon.

The Chaplain, Rev. Bernard Braskamp,
D. D., offered the following prayer:

O Thou God of eternal wisdom, jus¬
tice, and righteousness, there has been
placed uponus the inescapable responsi¬
bility of deciding which is the best way
to defend our beloved country and pre¬
serve the peace of the world.

We humbly and penitently confess
that we are confused. We are greatly
perplexed and disturbed. There is an
honest difference of opinion among us.
We are crediting one another with sin¬
cerity. Many of our constituents and
those whose judgment we value have
voiced their views but we are not yet
sure how to vote wisely and rightly.

Grant that we may now in all faith
and humility submit our proposals and
disputes and differences to the high
court of heaven and the Supreme Judge
of all mankind, beseeching Thee to illu¬
mine and inspire and direct us by Thy
divine spirit.

Help us to believe that when states¬
manship and human ingenuity have
done their utmost and their very best
that then we must still hold our deci¬
sion in abeyance until Thou has declared
Thy will.

We pray that the day may be hastened
when all our decisions are made with
Thy divine approval, and shall appeal
to the best judgment of our fellow citi¬
zens. Hear us in the name of the Prince
of Peace. Amen.

THE JOURNAL

The Journal of the proceedings of yes-
terday was read and approved.

Tuesday, March 4,1952

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Ken¬
tucky?

There was no objection.

SPECIAL ORDERS GRANTED

Mr. MASON asked and was given per¬
mission to address the House for 30 min¬
utes on Monday, March 17, St. Patrick’s
Day, following the legislative program
and any special orders heretofore en¬
tered.

Mr. JACKSON of California asked and
was given permission to address the
House for 30 minutes on Thursday next,
following the legislative program and any
special orders heretofore entered.

PRIVATE CALENDAR

The SPEAKER. This is Private Cal¬
endar day. The Clerk will call the first
individual bill on the Private Calendar.

MASTER SGT. ROBERT A. ESPE

The Clerk called the bill (H. R. 1796)
for the relief of Master Sgt. Robert A.
Espe.

There being no objection, the Clerk
read the.bill, as follows:

TO ASSIST IN PREVENTING ALIENS FROM

ENTERING OR REMAINING IN THE

UNITED STATES ILLEGALLY

Mr. CELLER. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent to take from the
Speaker’s desk the bill (S. 1851) to assist
in preventing aliens from entering or
remaining in the United States illegally,
insist on the House amendment, and
agree to the conference asked by the
Senate, and that the Chair appoint con¬
ferees.

The Clerk read the title of the bill.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from New
York? [After a pause.] The Chair
hears none and appoints the following
conferees: Messrs. Celler, Walter, and
Graham.

ECTION OF ROLL CALL

.TES of Kentucky. Mr. Speak-
oll call No. 14, I am recorded as
absent. I was present and voted
and ask unanimous consent that
Record be corrected accordingly.

Be it erihcted, etc.. That the Secretary of
the Treasury'toe, and he is hereby, authorized
and directed to pay, out of any money in the
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to
Robert A. Espe, master sergeant, United
States Air Force, the sum of $15,000. The
payment of such sum shall be in full settle¬
ment of all claims of the said Robert A. Espe
against the United States v on account of the
death of his wife; Joyce Merlyn Espe, and his
infant son, Victor Robert Espe, on January
26, 1950, while passengers in an Air Force
plane which disappeared after leaving
Elmendorf Air Base at Anchorage, Alaska:
Provided, That no part of the amount appro¬
priated in this aqt in excess of 10 percent
thereof shall be paid or delivered to or re¬
ceived by any agent or attorney on account of
Services rendered in connection with this
claim, and the same shall be unlawful, any
contract to the contrary notwithstanding.
Any person violating the provisions of this
act shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor
and upon conviction thereof shall be fined
in any sum not exceeding $1,000.

The bill was ordered to be engrossed
and read a third time, was read the third
time, and passed, and a motion to recon¬
sider was laid on the table.

MARY OSADCHY

The Clerk called the bill (H. R. 3561)
for the relief of Mary Osadchy.

There being no objection, the Clerk
read the bill, as follows:

Be it enacted, etc., That the Secretary of
the Treasury is authorized and directed to
pay, out of any money in the Treasury not
otherwise appropriated, to Mary Osadchy, of
Max, N. Dak., mother of the late Staff Sgt.
Vincent V. Osadchy, the sum of $2,161, rep¬
resenting the difference between the amount
of death-compensation benefits she would

have received had application been filed
therefor on November 30, 1944, the presumed
date of death of her son, and the balance
retained by her of amounts Improperly paid
through error of the Finance Department,
United States Army, in connection with fam¬
ily allowance payments.

Sec. 2. Any liability to the United States
arising out of payments erroneously made
to the said Mary Osadchy is hereby canceled.

Sec. 3. No part of the amount appropriated
in this act in excess of 10 percent thereof
shall be paid or delivered to or received by
any agent or attorney on account of services
rendered in connection with this claim, and
the same shall be unlawful, any contract to
the contrary notwithstanding. Any person
violating the provisions of this act shall be
deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and upon
conviction thereof shall be fined in any sum
not exceeding $1,000.

With the following committee amend¬
ments :

Page 1, line 7, strike out beginning with
“$2,161” down to and including the word
“payments” on page 2, line 2, and insert
“$1,426, which represents a like amount re¬
funded by her to the United States on ac¬
count of erroneous family allowance over¬
payments made to her by the Finance De¬
partment, United States Army.”

Page 2, strike out lines 7, 8, and 9 and
insert:

“Sec. 2. Any liability to the United States
arising out of payments of family allowance
erroneously made to the said Mary Osadchy
is hereby canceled.”

The committee amendments were
agreed to.

The bill was ordered to be engrossed
and read a third time, was read the third
time, and passed, and a motion to recon¬
sider was laid on the table.

LOUIS R. CHADBOURNE

The Clerk called the bill (H. R. 6264)
for the relief of Louis R. Chadbourne.

There being no objection, the Clerk
read the bill, as follows:

Be it enacted, etc., That the Secretary of
the Treasury is hereby authorized and di¬
rected to pay, out of any money in the
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to Louis
R. Chadbourne, of Medford, Mass., the differ¬
ence between the amount of retired pay to
which he would have been entitled during
the period in question and the amount of
the disability compensation benefits he re¬
ceived during the same period. The pay¬
ment of such sum shall be in full settle¬
ment of all claims of the said Louis R. Chad¬
bourne against the United States for retro¬
active retirement pay from November 19,
1945, the date of his separation from active
service, to March 1, 1949, the date on which
he was actually placed on the retired list
of the Navy: Provided, That no part of the
amount appropriated in this act in excess
of 10 percent thereof shall be paid or de¬
livered to or received by any agent or at¬
torney on account of services rendered in
connection with this claim, and the same
shall be unlawful, any contract to the con¬
trary notwithstanding. Any person violat-

1845

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE March 4

1846

lng the provisions of this act shall be deemed
guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction
thereof shall be fined in any sum not exceed¬
ing $1,000.

The bill was ordered to be engrossed
and read a third time, was read the third
time, and passed, and a motion to recon¬
sider was laid on the table.

ALEXANDER NEWMAN

The Clerk called the bill (H. R. 6414)
for the relief of Alexander Newman.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the present consideration of the bill?

Mr. DOLLIVER and Mr. D’EWART
objected; and, under the rule, the bill
was recommitted to the Committee on
the Judiciary.

SAMUEL THOMAS WONG

The Clerk called the bill (H. R. 4067)
for the relief of Samuel Thomas Wong.

There being no objection, the Clerk
read the bill, as follows:

Be it enacted, etc.. That in the adminis¬
tration of the immigration and naturaliza¬
tion laws, the provisions of sections 4 (a) and
9 of the Immigration Act of 1924, as amended,
shall be held to be applicable to the alien,
Samuel Thomas Wong, the minor, unmar¬
ried child of Samuel Eugene Wong, a citizen
of the United States.

The bill was ordered to be engrossed
and read a third time, was read the third
time, and passed, and a motion to recon¬
sider was laid on the table.

ANN TOBAK AND JOHN TOBAK

The Clerk called the bill (H. R. 4152)
for the relief of Ann Tobak and John
Tobak.

There being no objection, the Clerk
read the bill, as follows;

Be it enacted, etc., That, for the purposes
Of sections 4 (a) and 9 of the Immigration
Act of 1924, as amended, the minor children
Ann Tobak and John Tobak, of Livno, Bosna,
Sedevice, Yugoslavia, shall be held and con¬
sidered to be the natural-born alien children
of Mr. and Mrs. Philip Tobak, citizens of the
United States.

The bill was ordered to be engrossed
and read a third time, was read the
third time, and passed, and a motion to
reconsider was laid on the table.

HAZEL SAU FONG HEE

The Clerk called the bill (H. R. 4220)
for the relief of Hazel Sau Fong Hee.

There being no objection, the Clerk
read the bill, as follows:

Be it enacted, etc., That, in the adminis¬
tration of the immigration and naturaliza¬
tion laws, the provisions of sections 4 (a) and
9 of the Immigration Act of 1924, as amended,
shall be held to be applicableyto the alien
Hazel Sau Fong Hee, the nfidor unmarried
child of Alexander Chong Hee and Isabelle
Wong Hee, citizens of the United States.

The bill was ordered to be engrossed
and read a third time, was read the third
time, and passed, and a motion to re¬
consider was laid on the table.

MINGLAN HAMMERLIND

The Clerk called the bill (H. R. 4397)
for the relief of Minglan Hammerlind.

There being no objection, the Clerk
read the bill, as follows:

Be it enacted, etc., That, for the purposes
Of sections 4 (a) and 9 of the Immigration
Act of 1924, as amended, the minor child,
Minglan Hammerlind, shall be held and

considered to be the natural-born alien child
of Miss Elsa Hammerlind, citizen of the Unit¬
ed States.

The bill was ordered to be engrossed
and read a third time, was read the third
time, and passed, and a motion to re¬
consider was laid on the table.
NAGAKUBO (ALSO KNOWN AS ROY MER-
VTN NELSON)

The Clerk called the bill (H. R. 4691)
for the relief of Nagakubo (also known
as Roy Mervin Nelson).

There being no objection, the Clerk
read the bill, as follows:

Be it enacted, etc., That, notwithstanding
the provisions of section 13 (c) of the Immi¬
gration Act of 1924, as amended, Nagakubo
(also known as Roy Mervin Nelson), the
minor child of Roy M. Nelson, a United
States citizen, may be admitted to the Unit¬
ed States for permanent residence if he is
found to be otherwise admissible under the
provisions of the immigration laws.

The bill was ordered to be engrossed
and read a third time, was read the third
time, and passed, and a motion to re¬
consider was laid on the table.

The Clerk called the bill (H. R. 4772)
for the relief of Patricia Ann Harris.

There being no objection, the Clerk
read the bill, as follows:

Be it enacted, etc., That, for the purposes
of sections 4 (a) and 9 of the Immigration
Act of 1924, as amended, and notwithstand¬
ing the provisions of section 13 (c) of that
Act, the minor child, Patricia.Ann Harris,
shall be held and considered to be the natu¬
ral-born alien child of Mr. and Mrs. Crystal
C. Harris, citizens of the United States.

The bill was ordered to be engrossed
and read a third time, was read the third
time, and passed, and a motion to recon¬
sider was laid on the table.

The Clerk called the bill (H. R. 4788)
for the relief of Yoko Takeuchi.

There being no objection, the Clerk
read the bill, as follows:

Be it enacted, etc., That, notwithstanding
any provision of law excluding from admis¬
sion to the United States persons of races
ineligible to citizenship, the alien Yoko
Takeuchi, a minor half-Japanese child under
the care of Mr. and Mrs. Harry Tokomura,
both citizens of the United States residing
temporarily in Japan, shall be held and con¬
sidered to be the natural-born child of the
said Mr. and Mrs. Harry Tokomura. ‘

With the following committee amend¬
ment:

Strike out all after the enacting clause, and
Insert: “That, for the purposes of sections 4
(a) and 9 of the Immigration Act of 1924,
as amended, and notwithstanding the pro¬
visions of section 13 (c) of that act, the minor
child, Yoko Takeuchi, shall be held and con¬
sidered to be the natural-born alien child
of Mr. and Mrs. Harry Tokomura, citizens
of the United States.”

The committee amendment was agreed
to.

The bill was ordered to be engrossed
and read a third time, was read the third
time, and passed, and a motion to recon¬
sider was laid on the table.

RODNEY DREW LAWRENCE

The Clerk called the bill (H. R. 5187)
for the relief of Rodney Drew Lawrence.

There being no objection, the Clerk
read the bill, as follows:

Be it enacted, etc., That, in the adminis¬
tration of the immigration laws, the provi¬
sions of section 13 (c) of the Immigration
Act of 1924, as amended, shall not apply to
Rodney Drew Lawrence, adopted Japanese
minor child, and the said Rodney Drew
Lawrence shall be held and considered to be
the alien natural-born child of Sgt. (lc) and
Mrs. W. A. Lawrence, United States citizens.

The bill was ordered to be engrossed
and read a third time, was read the third
time, and passed, and a motion to recon¬
sider was laid on the table.

JOHN MICHAEL JURECEK

The Clerk called the bill (H. R. 5297)
for the relief of John Michael Jurecek.

There being no objection, the Clerk
read the bill, as follows:

Be it enacted, etc.. That, notwithstanding
any provision of law excluding from admis¬
sion to the United States persons of race
ineligible to citizenship, John Michael Jure¬
cek, a minor child under the care of Tech.
Sgt. and Mrs. Forrest C. Jurecek, both citi¬
zens of the United States residing tem¬
porarily in Japan, shall be held and con¬
sidered for the purposes of sections 4 (a)
and 9 of the Immigration Act of 1924, as
amended, to be the natural-born alien child
of the said Tech. Sgt. and Mrs. Forrest C.
Jurecek.

With the following committee amend¬
ment:

Strike out all after the enacting clause
and insert the following: “That, for the pur¬
poses of sections 4 (a) and 9, of the Immi¬
gration Act of 1924, as amended, and not¬
withstanding the provisions of section 13
(c) of that act, the minor child, John Mi¬
chael Jurecek, shall be held and considered
to be the natural-born alien child of Tech.
Sgt. and Mrs. Forrest C. Jurecek.”

The committee amendment was agreed
to.

The bill was ordered to be engrossed
and read a third time, was read the third
time, and passed, and a motion to recon¬
sider was laid on the table.

KAZUMI YAMASHITO

The Clerk called the bill (H. R. 5322)
for the relief of Kazumi Yamashito.

There being no objection, the Clerk
read the bill, as follows:

Be it enacted, etc., That, for the purposes
of sections 4 (a) and 9 of the Immigration
Act of 1924, as amended, and, notwithstand¬
ing the provision of section 13 (c) of that
act, the minor child, Kazumi Yamashito,
shall be held and considered to be the natu¬
ral-born alien child of Tech. Sgt. and Mrs.
Edward W. Gentry, citizens of the United
States.

The bill was ordered to be engrossed
and read a third time, was read the third
time, and passed, and a motion to recon¬
sider was laid on the table.

MOTOKO SAKURADA

The Clerk called the bill (H. R. 5437)
for the relief of Motoko Sakurada.

There being no objection, the Clerk
read the bill, as follows:

Be it enacted, etc., That notwithstanding
the provisions of section 13 (c) of the Immi¬
gration Act of 1924, as amended, Motoko
Sakurada, the minor child of Shizue Saku¬
rada, a United States citizen, may be ad¬
mitted to the United States for permanent
residence if she is found to be otherwise
admissible under the provisions of the Im¬
migration laws.

PATRICIA ANN HARRIS

YOKO TAKEUCHI

- 3 -

ims. m.

17.

FARM LABOR# Sen# Murray inserted a speech by Secretary of Labor Tobin dis¬
cussing the shortage of farm labor and favoring the bill to prevent the illegal
entry of Mexican laborers (pp# A1531-3)#

COTTON PRICES# Extension of remarks of Rep# Dorn, S# C., urging cotton price
supports at 90^ of the ceiling price (pp# A1537-8)*

:N STORAGE# Extension of remarks of Rep# Rabaut, Micho, commending Secretary
innkn for "integrity, fearlessness, and efficiency 11 in clearing up the gnain-
coihtersion cases, and including the Secretary's. press release of Feb# 28 on
itter (pp. A1538-41)* • / •

TRANSPORT!^ ON* Rep# O^Hara, Minn.#, inserted an address by Oswald Ryan, "Eoo-
nomic Developments in Air Transportation and Their Implications" (pp# Al54l~3)#

. , •/ *
FOREIGN AID# ftep# Reed, N. Y#, inserted a statement by Paul 0#. Peters recon-
„ mending termination of the foreign-aid program (pp# A15M*“5 )o

Sen# Bridges Inserted a Washington Daily News editorial criticizing the
President's foreigiXaid recommendations (p# A1552)*

Sen# Morse inserted a memorandum from a TCA board of consultants reaffirm¬
ing and supporting the\n.ews of Dr# Henry Bennett, late Administrator of the
Technical Cooperation Administration (pp# Al55i+-5)*

Sen. Benton inserted aS^unday's Times article stating that India's atti¬
tude, toward the U* S. is nowSmore friendly (pp# A1558-9)® »

Rep# Lanham inserted an Atlanta. Journal article favoring land reform in
Asia as the best way to fight Communism (p. Al56h)#

22#,PURCHASING# Sen# Case inserted a spapch by W# 0# Teckemeyer, GSA, explaining
USA's inspection and testing procedures in connection-with-Government purchas¬
ing (pp, A1550-1).

23# ST. LAWRENCE WATERWAY• Sen* Wiley insertedNa Milwaukee Journal editorial stat¬
ing that this proposed projeot'was originated prior to the New Deal

(pp. A 1552 - 5 ).

Sen# Aiken inserted a United States News and World Report article stating
that Canada wl 11 build this project alone if we do not join her (pp* A1557'"S)#
Rep# Reams, Ohio, inserted a Toledo Council resolution favoring this pro¬
ject (p. A1571)#

Extension of remarks of Rep. Kersten, Wis#, favoring the project (pp# A1591-*
1592).

ORESTRY# Rep#. Angell, Oreg., inserted an American Forests magazine article
describing the operation of the sustained-yield forestry law (pp* A1566-9)*

2^. FORESTRY

25*

FLOOD OONfROL# Extension of remarks of Rep# Scudder, Calif#, favoring addition¬
al flood control (p# A1569)#

my \

26# CENSUS# Rep# Schwabe, Okla#, inserted statements by Ferdie Deering and the

American Agricultural Editors' Association criticizing the manner of compiling
ricultural censuses (pp# A 1574 - 5 )*

-1a-

27* RECLAMATION* Extension of remarks of Rep* Engle, Calif*, commending the pro¬
gress of the Central Valley project (p. A1578)*

28* MEAT ART) DAIRY INDUSTRY* Rep* Rogers, Tex*, inserted a speech by former
Assistant Secretary of Agriculture Grover B* Hill stating that, although
people nay be confused the cow goes on producing (p« A1580)*

29* MILITARY TRAINING* Various statements discussing military training (pp* A1570-1,
A1579-80, A1583-8-)*

30* EXPENDITURES* Rep* Poul-son, Calif*, inserted a South Pasadena Republican Club
resolution supporting Seri*- Byrd 1 s recommendation for reduction in the Budget
(p. A1592).

Sen* Bridges inserted the Chamber of Conrorco's statement favoring various
reductions in the Budget (pp* Al593-'4)«

31* TRANSPORTATION* Rep* Lane, Mass., inserted a statement by John R* Mahoney

opposing S. 2352, which would amend the interstate Commerce Act by requiring
an annual license fee on each holder of a certificate, p rmit, or license* .
(pp* Al59lk-6)o X,

0 O 0

COMMITTEE HEARING ANNOUNCEMENTS FOR MAR* 11s Defense Production Apt amendments,

S. Banking* Agricultural appropriations for l9b3> &• Appropriations (ex)* Research
on fresh water from sea water, H. Interior, Road authorizations, full \g. Public
Works (ex"J 4 Credit control and debt management, Joint Committee on the Xpnonic
Report, Report of subcommittee on Federal manpower investigations, S* Post Office
and Civil Service (ex)* Extension of GI Bill of Rights to veterans of Korea,
Veterans Affairs, Smal1-business problems under Controlled Materials Plan, H*

Small Business,

0 O 0

Address by the Secretary of Labor Before

a Luncheon of the Farm-Labor Confer¬
ence and the Kiwanis Club, of Fort

Worth, Tex.

EXTENSION OF REMARKS

HON. JAMES E. MURRAY

OF MONTANA

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

Monday, March 10, 1952

Mr. MURRAY. Mr. President, when
we review the accomplishments of our
Government in the field of labor rela¬
tions during the past several years, we
will find that the present Secretary of
Labor, Hon. Maurice J. Tobin, has made
many highly constructive contributions
to the welfare and progress of the work¬
ing people of our country. He has
proven to be one of America’s ablest Sec¬
retaries of Labor. Under his wise guid¬
ance the rights of American workers to
fair wages, good working conditions, and
decent living standards have been pro¬
tected and advanced as a sound national
policy. All this has been accomplished
without any disturbance of industry,
without injury to any interests, and with
great benefit to the Nation in this period
of world crisis.

Recently the Secretary of Labor de¬
livered an address on farm labor which
is worthy of the attention of the Mem¬
bers of this body. His address was de¬
livered before a joint luncheon of the
farm-labor conference and the Kiwanis
Club at Fort Worth, Tex., on February
14, 1952.

I ask unanimous consent to have this
able address printed in the Appendix of
the Record.

There being no objection, the address
was ordered to be printed in the Record,
as follows:

I always welcome an opportunity to go
west of the Mississippi River. The blueness
of the sky and the optimism of the people
give my spirits a lift.

History has placed the Capitol of this Na¬
tion in the East. The Nation has grown West.
In government, then, we must constantly be
looking west. We must do all we can to
overcome the continental distances that lie
between us.

And I am speaking here not only of the
geographical spaces of America. I am speak¬
ing of the distances of the mind. It is in
the realm of the mind that the people must
constantly be conquering distances. They
must build a network of understanding and
purpose of vision and organized effort so
that the union of their strength under gov¬
ernment will be stronger than any force.

Our pioneer forefathers, In their century,
spanned this rich raw American continent by
superhuman effort and delivered it into our
hands fenced, plowed, and well stocked.

Appendix

And from one end of the land to the other
they proclaimed freedom. Freedom is the
tie that binds the West and the East, the
North and the South. Freedom is what
makes us one people.

Today our heritage of freedom is in deadly
peril. Another totalitarian power has
arisen in Europe to threaten the freedom of
men and women all over the earth.

The dark shadow of communism has fallen
over the lives of millions who had longed,
and prayed and determined to work for the
kind of free government we have here in
the United States.

The forces of freedom and the forces of
oppression are locked in a titanic struggle to¬
day in many parts of the world. We have
met the Communist challenge, we will go on
meeting it, wherever and whenever it arises,
as long as we continue to treasure the heri¬
tage of our forefathers.

In today’s world of tensions, food is a
weapon. We American people are faced with
the question of how we can, by working to¬
gether in confidence, rid the world of its
fundamental threat—what President Tru¬
man in his recent report to Congress called
stomach communism.

Starvation is the strongest ally that com¬
munism has in India, in Mayala, in Europe,
in Latin America. Food will defeat stomach
communism. Food is our weapon.

Who is going to plant it? Who is going
to harvest it? In a word where is the farm
labor coming from for our 1952 crops?

We must look first and always, of course,
for help from our own people. Your State
employment offices constantly search to em¬
ploy every American who is willing to go into
the fields. This year they will do even more
than before to encourage part-time workers,
older workers, youth, housewives, handi¬
capped, and others to help with the harvests.
Your State employment offices are con¬
stantly giving information that will bring
the unemployed farm worker and the farmer
together.

I know that some of our small farmers
have their troubles. I do not believe that
the definition I heard the other day of a poor
Texan applies to everybody. I was told that
a poor Texan is one who has to wash his own
Cadillac. At any rate, there are a great
many prosperous farmers today—men who,
by good times, good sense, and support prices
have made a going business of agriculture.

To these successful farmers, I say: You
can help defeat the shortage of farm workers
by making farm work and farm like more
attractive. Good housing and good wages
are insurance of a supply of workers. The
farmer who can invest in these, will find
that the investment is fully as justified as
the insurance that he pays on his buildings
and his machinery.

And a better wage for the American farm
worker will mean more money in everybody’s
pocket. Listen to this editorial from a lower
Rio Grande Valley newspaper.

"If $2 is the going wage, what would
happen if $3 per hundred were offered? A
few cotton farmers acknowledge that they
would have plenty of takers at that figure.
We even grew bold enough to ask a banker
what would happen If more than $2 was
paid, and he said, ‘money would be flowing
in the streets.’

“After talking with scores of people in the
valley, we have found a remarkable amount
of agreement on the fact that a high picking
wage will not only get the crop in but will
produce the sort of monetary circulation for
which the valley has been hoping since
the February freeze.”

Yes; the payment of a decent wage for
American farm workers is an investment.
But it’s not an investment that can be
measured by the pocketbook alone. It’s an
investment in healthy children, in whole¬
some life, in decent living standards for
American farm workers.

The story of America’s migratory farm
workers is well known. It has been a story
of children without schools, of homes with¬
out the minimum standards for decent
health. It has been a story of disease and
hunger and ignorance. Conditions of Amer¬
ica’s migratory workers have been partly the
result of the thousands of illegal aliens
who filter across our borders. These aliens
displace American families and send them
from their homes in search of new work.
These aliens have made possible the low
wages in some areas that have brought about
the degradation of many American farm
families. This is not a problem for any one
State or any one area or any one group of
men. This is a national problem. The liv¬
ing conditions of some of our migratory
workers are a national disgrace. And the
problem, as I shall indicate later, must have
a national solution.

Our first objective must be to entrust as
much of the farm work as we possibly can
to our own workers, at decent wages free
from the competition of illegal aliens. We
must not forget that a human being, a fel¬
low citizen in our democratic family, one of
God’s children, comes before grapefruit and
before cotton. Otherwise, we are guilty of
the kind of selfish materialism that is the
basis of communism.

No, we must not forget our own. And we
must never forget that the whole splendid
rise of the American economy, of business, of
production, is based on one source of life
blood—on the constant flow of good wages
into the hands of the retail merchant, into
the wholesaler’s hands, into the manufac¬
turer’s hands, and back into the worker’s
hands, in a magic circle that makes pros¬
perity possible. It is a system of fairness
and individual reward for individual work.

But we are now engaged in a test of this
system that does not leave time to solve our
problems between morning and night. The
harvests never wait for man to arrange his
social life. The American harvests, God
willing, are going to be heavier than ever.
We must find the workers for the harvest
peak. We must, when the harvest comes,
find people even though we have to go abroad
to do it.

The United States with her food goals for
1952 is short on farm labor. The world
population is increasing. The world food
supply is short, as the World Food Congress
in Rome has emphasized. We are one of
the few nations that can produce a surplus.
America must plant and harvest the bumper
crop of all time. We have as a goal 6,500-
000 acres to plow—an Increase of 4 percent
over last year. Say, six or seven King
ranches completely cultivated. This is no
small Job.

A1531

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—APPENDIX March 10

A1532

But not only have the people of the world
increased In number. We Americans are
now consuming more than ever before. The
average American consumes 13 percent more
food than 10 years ago.

Getting enough people to harvest our
bumper crop will not be easy. A man would
rather live in town on a year-round job
than go up one row and down the other
from daylight to dark and not know where
he will work next. Better housing, com¬
forts, entertainment, schools, as well as bet¬
ter jobs have all added to the gravitation to
cities.

Therefore, farm workers keep moving to
town when they can, and they can now
that defense production is growing each day.
Our defense plants and our military are both
expanding by drawing from the agricultural
labor supply. Where then will we look for
farm labor if we are planting more crops
and losing some of the hands to gather
these crops? That is the question the farm¬
ers are asking.

In the face of larger goals for food, we
must in 1952 look to our neighbors. We
must look to our friends abroad when our
own farm workers are fully employed. We are
being helped on the east coast by people
from Canada, the British West Indies, and
our citizens from Puerto Rico. We plan to
use as many Puerto Ricans as we can in
the days ahead. But in the Southwest and
the West, our increasing harvests in this de¬
fense period have had to depend more and
more upon the work of people from Mexico.
The Mexicans are nearest and it is less diffi¬
cult to bring and return them home.

It is fortunate for us that Mexico with
many good men for the fields regards us
as a friend today and continues to send us
help. Last year Mexico sent us 190,000 farm
workers—less than 2 percent of all people
engaged in agriculture. But these men have
rendered assistance to farmers from Texas
to Michigan and Minnesota, from Georgia
and Mississippi to California and the State
of Washington.

Today because the farm-labor supply
counts for so much in our national strength,
we cannot ignore Mexico as a source of help.

We are now working under authority from
Congress known as Public Law No. 78. This
law allows your Government to negotiate
contracts with the Republic of Mexico for
Mexican workers to fill the gaps in our farm-
labor ranks.

I don’t believe that the public understands
all the new problems that must be met in
dealing with a sovereign nation for a labor
supply. There are five general considera¬
tions that we must face. We must consider
the American worker. We must consider
the American employer. We must consider
the Mexican worker. We must consider the
position of the Mexican Government, and
last, and fundamentally at all times, we must
consider the general good of the Nation.

The point of view of the employer, who
In this case is a farmer, is that he wants
his labor needs met in such a way that he
can operate his farm successfully. He wor¬
ries because, although farm prices are up,
he sees a decreasing supply of farm labor.
The western and southwestern farmers and
ranchers look to our agreement with Mexico
for relief from this particular business worry.
They want to know that they can get the
necessary men when their harvests hang
heavy in the fields and orchards—when they
see their investments exposed to the unpre¬
dictable disasters of nature.

The point of view of the employee is in
a sense the same as the farmers’. He is in
the business of selling the sweat of his brow
and he wants to stay in business. Unem¬
ployment is as disastrous to him as storms
and freezes and floods are to his employer.
And like the farmer, he wants to earn as
much as he can. Both the farmer’s and the
laborer’s viewpoint are expressed by the

current quip: “Whether your’re rich or poor,
it’s good to have money."

The position of the Mexican Government,
in the case of the international farm labor
agreement with the United States, is that
of attorney or representative of its citizens’
interests. But the Mexican Government
must also consider the national viewpoint as
well as that of the workers’. This means
that Mexico must decide whether these
workers can be spared from her program of
industrial development, including dam
building and the opening of new land to
agriculture. Will it affect her national dig¬
nity or create serious national problems?

And, finally, in arranging for the use of
foreign workers, this Government must bear
in mind the general good of the United
States. We must make sure that we do not
create a situation that will produce disease
and crime and poverty. We must make
equally sure that we do not deprive our own
people of work opportunities or lower their
standards of living through the introduction
of cheap competitive labor. We must also
make sure that we maintain our growing
friendship with our next-door neighbor,
Mexico.

Those are the considerations that we must
bear in mind.

It is no small achievement that we have
worked out an agreement, an agreement that
goes as far as it does in satisfying all these
points of view. It is no small achievement
that in 120 days we were able to bring into
the United States more than 125,000 Mexi¬
can workers as the farmers required them,
to see that- they were paid a fair wage, in¬
sured and protected in all ways, and re¬
turned to Mexico.' It is no small achieve¬
ment to know in times of emergency that
may arise in the future that we have the
machinery and we have the good will of
Mexico. She can supply the agricultural
workers our country may desperately need.

Meanwhile, I can assure you that we are
making progress toward a greater perfection
of this international machinery for the emer¬
gency use of Mexican farm labor. Some
farmers have said, for instance, that the con¬
tracting procedure is too complicated. I
suggest that it is no more complicated than
negotiating a loan with your banker.

In our efforts to perfect the terms of the
arrangement with Mexico, we have asked the
farmers for their comments. Some of their
criticisms have been valid. It is true, as they
point out, that a provision is needed to im¬
pose a greater responsibility on the worker
to complete his contract once he is on the
farm. We are all, the two Governments and
the workers, under an obligation to under¬
stand the farmer’s position. And there is
every reason to believe that in redrafting the
contract such legitimate objections can be
taken care of.

At the same time, the farmer is under
an obligation, just as this Government is,
to understand Mexico’s position. He must
understand for one thing that the United
States guarantees compliance with the con¬
tract and has the authority to carry it out.
And it will also help if the employer, particu¬
larly along the Mexican Border, understands
the necessity of ending the illegal immigra¬
tion of workers.

The illegal and uncontrolled immigration
of Mexicans as farm labor to the Southwest
has been, and still is, the great mountain
between our country and Mexico. We must
move it before we can work in full harmony
with Mexico. Furthermore, the interests of
the United States coincides with Mexico’s in
controlling the border. This problem has
grown to alarming proportions. Mexico has
seen an increasing illegal flow of its citizens
north to work in United States agriculture
and United States . Industry. There they
must exist in effect as men without a coun¬
try—without the protection of any govern¬
ment. And for all our efforts, the illegal im¬

migration Is still much larger than the num¬
ber who come legally as braceros.

Under Public Law No. 78, we must meet
requirements of the Mexican Government for
the protection of its workers—a fair wage,
Insurance, good housing, safe transportation.
This protection Is necessary not only to sat¬
isfy Mexico, but to protect American work¬
ing and living conditions, which the law re¬
quires us to do, as it should. The problem
of Illegal entry is ours, as well as Mexico’s.
We cannot carry out our legal assignment
of protecting our American workers when we
have foreign workers—illegal and under¬
cover—in competition with them. Nor can
the Nation undertake to accept blindly all
the potential social problems that uncon¬
trolled immigration can bring—problems like
disease and poverty.

All enlightened people see the value to
this country of high labor standards. As I
have said, and I say it again for emphasis,
the wages of workmen do not pile up. They
are spent on goods, and these give the mer¬
chant and the manufacturer his living and
his profit. Merchants along the border,
should, for their own interest, oppose illegal
labor, because legal labor will mean higher
wages, which will be spent in the merchants’
stores, rather than a group of illegal workers
employed at the lowest agricultural wages
In the United States.

Throughout the United States, farmers and
farm organizations have indicated that they
are looking anxiously south to Mexico to
supply the harvest workers who at peak sea¬
son may mean the difference between the
success or failure of their ventures. But
until we can shut the door of the border to
illegal immigration, there is little hope for a
satisfactory supply of legal labor.

Who is attempting to prevent the border
from being controlled? They are a very few,
most of them located in the Lower Rio
Grande Valley where border control is most
difficult. They cannot fully realize what
they are doing to their own industry. They
do not know what they are doing to the na¬
tional security by trying to maintain a wide
open frontier on our Southwest international
border.

First of all, they tend to sabotage their own
fellow farmers by making it more difficult
for the rest of the country not adjacent to
the border to obtain its necessary supple¬
mental labor from Mexico at the moment of
a shortage. Their employment of contra¬
band Mexican labor antagonizes the Mexican
Government. It would, if continued, un¬
doubtedly cause Mexico to end her agreement
to supply us with legal labor according to the
general needs of the country.

In the second place, and this is a very seri¬
ous situation, an uncontrolled border is al¬
ways a danger, an Achilles heel to the secu¬
rity of any country. Not only does it have an
adverse effect upon relations with Mexico,
but it represents a constant threat to a con¬
tinuing supply of farm workers from that
country, when we need them. Futhermore,
any open border allows a flow of criminals,
white slavers, narcotic peddlers, smugglers,
and the like from all over the world.

Most important of all, an open border to
the south, is an invitation to the agents of
foreign powers that seek to destroy this Na¬
tion and its free way of life. An open border
is an invitation to Communist spies. Within
the last year, American authorities have ap¬
prehended scores of known Communists
from iron curtain countries and elsewhere,
who made their way across the border. How
long can this Nation continue to leave its
door open for saboteurs and espionage agents
from the Kremlin? I tell you our national
security demands that we plug up this hole
in our defense.

We know of more than one ranch with
miles of frontage on the Mexican border
that will not permit our immigration officers
to enter and search for aliens. A chain and

1952

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-APPENDIX

A1533

lock bar the way. Nobody In the United
States Government knows what is on those
ranches, and I know in my heart that not
one person in this listening audience wants
to have this situation remain uncorrected.

You may say, how can this be possible? It
is possible because of the constant pressure
by a few to prevent Congress from giving the
necessary authority and personnel to our im¬
migration force. We cannot act too dili¬
gently in closing the southwestern border
to all but legal and controlled traffic. Let
me appeal then to all of you and, particu¬
larly, to the farmers along the Mexican
border, to cooperate with your Government
in stopping the traffic of illegal immigration
that keeps pushing north into this country.

A bill that would greatly increase the
power of the Government to crack down on
illegal aliens, to stop this wetback traffic in
its tracks, was passed only last week by the
Senate.

I know that in Texas and the southwest,
and wherever the wetback problem is under¬
stood, the people will join in supporting this
bill. I know they will join also in the hope
that a new law can open a new chapter in
the history of Mexican farm labor in the
United States.

In this chapter there will be legally im¬
ported Mexican braceros, employed at decent
wages and decent working conditions, living
in decent housing, and eating decent food.

But there will not be wetbacks. An indus¬
try that has to base its profits on the peonage
and exploitation of illegal aliens has no place
in this free democracy.

In this new chapter, the chapter we can
write if the House of Representatives ap¬
proves the bill that was passed by the Sen¬
ate, there will be legal Mexican labor to help
farmers who can’t find enough Americans
to help with their harvests.

There will be plenty of work for American
farm workers at decent wages.

The crops will be harvested. The farmer
will reap his fair profit. The Nation and all
of the free world will have its food. But we
will no longer pay the price in human misery
that we have been paying during this era of
the wetback. And we will be able to lock
our borders with Mexico’s help against the
entrance of Communist saboteurs and spies.
This wonderful progress is on the verge of
a realization due to the wholehearted co¬
operation and support of every important
farm organization in the United States.
They have demonstrated their real Ameri¬
canism—God bless them.

Got. John S. Fine Delivers a Stirring
Address Incident to the Pennsylvania
yral Oath Ceremony, March j^/1952

^TENSION OF REMARKS

HON. ih\MES E. VA^ ZANDT

oW PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE HOUSH'PP IffiFRESENTATIVES

Monday, jtfqrch 10, 1952

Mr. VAN ZAT0T. Mr. Speaker, thou¬
sands of employees df the Common¬
wealth of Rennsylvania\in compliance
with the Loyalty Act passed at the last
session ()Z the State legislature, partici¬
pated oh March 3 in loyalty oath cere-
monieis conducted in every county in the
Keystone State.

aince Harrisburg is the State capital,
ipressive ceremonies were held the e\

hing of March 3 in the forum of the
Education Building.

Gov. John S. Fine and his cabinet offi¬
cers participated in the awe-inspiring
program that taxed the seating capacity •
of tne auditorium. The loyalty oath
was administered by Associate Justice
S tear nek of the Supreme Court of Penn-
sylvania\

The Loyalty Act passed the State legis¬
lature largely through the efforts of Gov¬
ernor Fine and veterans organizations.

In delivering the principal address of
the evening, Governor Fine said:

I have just happily concluded the volun¬
tary taking of the oath. Members of my
cabinet and thousands of State employees
also eagerly reaffirmed their patriotism.

My own action has stimulated my love of
country. This voluntary act has brought a
resurgence of patriotic fervor to me. My cup
of allegiance to my Nation and my State has
always been brimful—tonight it overflows.

Governor Fine reminded his listeners
that—

Tonight 10,000 Pennsylvanians are among
America’s outposts in Korea; approximately
75,000 Pennsylvanians are in the'armed serv¬
ices of their country; and tragically flag-
draped boxes of 1,400 silent patrifttic Penn¬
sylvanians have already departed Korean
battles—in the light of that spirit We gather
here tonight.

Governor Fine recalled that Gen.
George Washington who was destined
to be the Father of our Country proud¬
ly predged allegiance in 1778 at Valley
Forge, to the little that was then Amer¬
ica and in its dreariest hour. The Gov-\
ernor then asked these questions:

Can we do less for a mighty and robust
America, strong materially and spiritually?

Must we submerge the goodness and great¬
ness which is America to the vocal whims of
the few who secretly plan our destruction
while blatantly extolling our Bill of Rights?

Continuing, Governor Fine said:

This is not the first time that a loyalty
oath has been asked in Pennsylvania. In
1777 -every male white resident, inhabitant
of the State had to give assurance of alle¬
giance to the Nation and the Commonwealth.
As long ago as that time our lawmakers as¬
serted and put in the act that allegiance
and protection are reciprocal, and those who
will not bear the former are not, nor ought
not to be, entitled to the benefits of the
latter.

Governor Fine asserted:

That holds true today. It will hold true
tomorrow—and forever.

The impressive, eloquent, and dynam¬
ic address of Governor Fine is of such
thought-provoking caliber that I include
it in its ehtirety at this point in my
remarks:

Pennsylvania’s loyal legion of public ser¬
vants, including teachers, are tonight exer¬
cising the privilege of rededicating them¬
selves to their Commonwealth and to their
Nation.

Here ap'd now they have the sublime op¬
portunity to further ennoble their lives and
to dignify the national conduct in demon¬
strating anew their faith in America and
Its ideals. These actions are unerring guide-
posts toward the fulfillment of the Ameri¬
can destiny.

Throughout the State, county by county,
even as here in the capital city of Harris¬

burg, thousands upon thousands of eager
Americans are, with humble and grateful
hearts subscribing to Pennsylvania’s new
loyalty oath. This Inspiring occasion of
legislative creation is, with exceedingly few
exceptions, willingly and feelingly embraced
with warm devotion.

This reaffirmation of fealty to Common¬
wealth and to Country also provides us op¬
portunity to purify our social bloodstream
of alien poison, and to cleanse our national
life of Red germ cells that may infest and
contaminate it. It is appropriate that dur¬
ing the Lenten season the forces of God and
of right should thus be openly and mlll-
tantly arrayed against evil and Godless com¬
munism.

In this mass avowal of renewed faith, we
who serve the public also serve notice that
the public we serve is for free men who would
remain free, and for men who seek free¬
dom everywhere. We are warning alienisms
and strange philosophies that we cherish our
liberties. We are confidently asserting that
none may trample upon those freedoms, least
of all those who are within the very struc¬
ture of our own Government— yes, those
who sup their sustenance from the well-
served table of the Government they would
undermine and destroy.

I have just happily concluded the volun¬
tary taking of the oath. Members of my
cabinet and thousands of State employees
who jam the forum in our State Education
Building in Harrisburg also eagerly reaffirmed
their patriotism.

My own action has stimulated my love of
country. This voluntary act has brought a
resurgence of patriotic fervor to me. My cup
of allegiance to my Nation and to my State
has always been brimful—tonight it over¬
flows. All of you, I am sure, feel as I so fer¬
vently and possessively feel: “This is our
country.’’

As we reaffirm our loyalty, we fittingly
honor our courageous and resolute fore¬
fathers who gave us national stature. We
donfirm our dynamic faith in those ideals of
liberty, independence, and justice, so gener¬
ously transmitted to us a beneficent heri¬
tage.

We are here proclaiming to each other—
yea, toy the entire world—that we intend to
keep the human rights our forebears secured
for us; that we enjoy freedom’s fullest bless¬
ing—God's bestowed goodness; that we are
alerted to pur responsibilities to keep those
blessings ufisullied and undefiled. May it
not be said of us that our sturdy American
forebears endowed us with priceless liberties
which we thoughtlessly lost in pursuit of an
illusive paganistjic security. Tonight we do
solemnly pledge we will preserve that heri¬
tage and pass it op to a virile posterity as a
worthy trust would have it.

Throughout our comparatively short na¬
tional life there havfe been incidents which
then, as now, symbolized a revitalized
Americanism.

Down through echoing and vibrant years
Americans have responded to the pungent
expressions of our leaders which were as pa¬
triotic plasma to creeping fictional paralysis.

Patrick Henry’s “Give me liberty or give
me death” stirred the American colonies and
propelled our pioneers to new heights in
their aspirations to be and to remain free.

During the Revolution from whose pains
was born a free America, hardy men seeking
independence absorbed strength from Nathan
Hale’s last words: “I regret that I have but
one life to give for my country.”

Throughout the new America there was a
quickening of the colonial pulse to Pinck¬
ney’s declaration: “Millions for defense, but
not one cent for tribute.”

What American failed to thank God for his
spiritual heritage, or remained complacent th

A1534

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—APPENDIX

March 10

the ringing words of Naval Commander
James Lawrence: “Don’t give up the ship.”

In our bleakest days in the Pacific who
among us failed to see a piercing ray of hope
In the challenging, truly American defy to
Japanese: “I shall return.” All America was
raised from doubt and despair to confidence
and certainty, and the lamp of liberty had
a new glow in this terse promise of one of
the ablest Americans of all times—General
Douglas MacArthur. The Philippines were
lost, but they were regained; MacArthur re¬
turned.

Recently the world thrilled to the indom¬
itable courage of Capt. Kurt Carlsen of the
Flying Enterprise. His heroism in challeng¬
ing the buffetings of angr-y waves, in fighting
vicious seas and whistling winds, wrote an¬
other chapter in the saga of American cour¬
age. We eagerly awaited news of his strug¬
gles. This action awakened many of our
ideals which were too long dormant. He
endured his trying experience because he
had courage, integrity, loyalty, humility. He
suffered and sacrificed because he so chose;
because, as he told me, it was not merely to
save some old wood, but to: “Save a little
bit of America under our country’s flag.”

Tonight 10,000 Pennsylvanians are among
America’s outposts in Korea; approximately
75,000 Pennsylvanians are in the armed serv¬
ices of their country; and, tragically, flag-
draped boxes of 1400 silenced patriotic Penn¬
sylvanians have already departed Korean
battles. Those men gave their liberties and
their lives not only to save all of America, but
also to secure for us the continued blessings
of freedom. In the light of that spirit we
gather here tonight, we challenge those who
distort liberty for license, privilege for pur¬
suit of plunder, under a predetermined con¬
ception that treasons and conspiracies have
free exercise under the Bill of Rights. Co¬
existing with each right of man is a cor¬
responding duty and responsibility. He who
flees to America or to its Constitution as a
haven of security has at least the moral obli¬
gation to be loyal to the country and Consti¬
tution whose aid he seeks.

America always has been and always will
be proud of its fighting men, its pioneers—
men of sacrifice, men of devotion, and men
of faith.

Our national history is studded with simi¬
lar incidents. All of them must remind us
that the old and enduring ideals of American
courage, honesty, frugality, and loyalty are
good ideals and sound traditions. They can
serve only to strengthen our minds, em¬
bolden our hearts, and enrich our souls.

Americanism is a word freighted with pa¬
triotic fervor. It gives a moral and a spiri¬
tual uplift. It means an untrammeled
citizenry. It means the right to worship as
man’s conscience dictates. It insures a free
press, peaceable assembly, and the right to
say who shall be the Government; it guar¬
antees us independence, freedom, and the
right of individual incentive.

Americanism is a dynamic spirit which
illumines darkness and despair with truth
and hope. It is everything that we as a
people have been, are now, or ever hope to
be. It is the bulwark of our determination
that we will not be deprived of our great,
unsurpassed privileges and rights, whether
the destroyer connives to / frustrate us at
home or to engage us abroad.

Our Americanism was not gained easily.
Washington’s men at Valley Forge—ragged,
disheartened, starving'in the midst of bitter
winter—point up the hardships and the
courage which won and builded American¬
ism.

Tonight in Valley Forge Park the State
employees of that area took their loyalty oath
in the same Bake House where General Al¬
exander gave the loyalty oath to General
Washington in 1778. He who was to be the
Father of our Country proudly pledged al¬
legiance to the little that was then America,

and in its dreariest hour. Can we do less
for a mighty and robust America, strong ma¬
terially and spiritually? Must we submerge
the goodness and greatness which is America
to the vocal whim of the few who secretly
plan our destruction while blatantly extoll¬
ing our Bill of Rights?

We cannot take our freedoms lightly.
Americanism is not a manufactured product
rolling off the assembly lines. To preserve
it we must fight for it if necessary. It must
always remain so worthy that we would give
our last full measure of devotion to keep it.

That is why all of us—irrespective of race,
or creed, or of color, or of political adher¬
ence—should be gloriously inspired with the
opportunity of reaffirming our loyalty and
our allegiance to the greatness and the dig¬
nity that is America.

I have no patience with those few recalci¬
trants who are motivated by an alien gov¬
ernmental philosophy to rebel at taking
Pennsylvania’s loyalty oath. Our American
youth who bear arms and who lay their very
lives on the altar of Americanism—the sol¬
dier and the officer who fight our battles—
they take an oath of loyalty and allegiance
to country. Every year our National Guard
men take loyalty oath. Why should others
decline who benefit by their sacrifice? Must
we continue to coddle the foreign asp and

cover cur undercover enemies. We will be a
better State and a better Nation for the
uncovering.

This is not the first time that a loyalty
oath has been asked in Pennsylvania. In
1777 every male white resident inhabitant of
the State had to give assurances of alle¬
giance to the Nation and to the Common-
weath. As long ago as that time our law¬
makers asserted and put in the act that
“Allegiance and protection are reciprocal,
and those who will not bear the former are
not, nor ought not to be, entitled to the
benefits of the latter.”

That holds true today. It will hold true
tomorrow—forever.

The oath taken in/1777 required our peo¬
ple not only to be U5yal; it required them to
help round up traitorous persons. Today in
our new oath ^ do not formally ask our
employees to /eek out information, but I
am hopeful of the same results.

Certainly in our avowals of loyalty tonight,
and from jtfow until April 1, no one is being
endangered. The great veterans’ organiza¬
tions of Pennsylvania who so nobly fought
for the new loyalty oath know that it affords
protection to reputations—not assailment.

Americans are the greatest segment of hu-
rpan society. We haven’t lost our beliefs in
.God and country. I have a deep faith in

hold it ever closer to our bosom? When - America and in its people. We have always
eagerness and desire should be foremost, why been and we always will be able to depend
is there a hardship in reaffirming our fealty upon loyal Americans to protect the rights
and our gratitude for our country’s limit- America has given us.

less blessings? Who is the man or woman
among us who would say they do not •’want
our God-given freedom? What rational man
or woman will toss away our freedoms so
thoughtlessly? Reason cannot be harnessed
to such human madness and still manifest
logic. /

Those men of iron will who/through sacri¬
fice and pitiable privation/ insured inde¬
pendence and liberties for-us, knew that to
maintain those blessings ldyalty to our coun¬
try, its traditions and i*t ideals was impera¬
tively necessary for all time. They knew
that the aspirations jot the individuals must
not transcend or rise above- the security of
all. They knew j;fiat as long\as our Nation
lived our people would call upon the rights
guaranteed by .Government. But the found¬
ers expected .-ds to use those rights as they
were intended to be used.

The spirit which united the Thirteen Colo¬
nies and 1 gave birth to the Declaration of
Independence, to the Constitution, and to
the IJill of Rights was a spirit born of most
sacrificial loyalty. Their loyalty to a creative
caj/se—a cause destined for world leader¬
ship—was a loyalty to all—to their creation,
a free America. The security of America
was primary; their own life and liberty was
secondary.

Yet we have a few people who today re¬
coil, who ignobly recoil, from reaffirming
loyalty to country and Commonwealth. And
these are the people who in their refusal
rush to' invoke the very privileges and the
rights they seek to destroy.

We cannot permit them to impede the
cleansing of our government or our private
enterprises, or to give aid to the Commu¬
nist conspiracy which seeks our destruction.
To impede this aid is a reason for the Penn¬
sylvania Loyalty Act.

This new act will help to ferret out Com¬
munist activities which may exist in Penn¬
sylvania.

We do not expect that the mere taking of
the loyalty oath will completely wipe out
Communist activities. A legal mandate will
not cleanse a polluted mind, uncorrupt a cor¬
rupted heart, or undefile a defiled soul. It
may not create loyalties where none exist.
By the same token this act will not encour¬
age wholesale perjury. We do believe it will
do much to accomplish our objectives. It
will alert our people to the dangers which
face us. An alerted and free people will un-

And so tonight respectfully we stand and
are counted—a grateful people spontane¬
ously saluting our flag, our State, and our
country. And while reveling happily in the
freedom that is America, we tell the world:
We will not submit to any infringement of
our liberties either from without or from
within.

We know the American way of life is the
way of true loyal Americans. It is not the
way of synthetic Americans, or for those who
use that native or adopted name as a cloak
for a destructive foreign philosophy. Alex¬
ander the Great once called before him a
slave whom he had noticed working quite
industriously and attentively on the palace
grounds. When the king asked the slave’s
name, the latter responded: “Alexander, sir.”
After repeated floggings, administered be-
' cause the slave bore his name and with each
succeeding flogging the more severe, the
slave consistently and persistently gave his
name, responding: “Alexander, sir.” King
Alexander, amazed, finally dismissed the
slave with the admonition: “Either, change
your way of life or change your name.”

To those amongst us who believe all is
wrong with America and all is right with
Russia, we have every right to say: “Either
change your way of life or change your
name.”

Senator Robert Taft in Connecticut

EXTENSION OF REMARKS

HON. JAMES T. PATTERSON

OP CONNECTICUT

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Monday, March 10, 1952

Mr. PATTERSON. Mr. Speaker, the
citizens of Connecticut had the oppor¬
tunity last Wednesday, March 5, to see
and hear Senator Robert Taft in his
avowed fight for the Republican presi¬
dential nomination.

Many Connecticut Republican leaders
have indicated their support for Gen¬
eral Eisenhower, and several of the

82d Congress
2d Session

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Report
No. 1505

ASSIST IN PREVENTING ALIENS FROM ENTERING OR
REMAINING IN THE UNITED STATES ILLEGALLY

March 11, 1952.—Ordered to be printed

)

Mr. Celler, from the committee of conference, submitted the

following

CONFERENCE REPORT

[To accompany S. 1851]

The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two
Houses on the amendments of the House to the bill (S. 1851) entitled
“An act to assist in preventing aliens from entering or remaining in
the United States illegally,” having met, after full and free conference,
have agreed to recommend and do recommend to their respective
Houses as follows:

That the Senate recede from its disagreement to the amendment of
the House numbered 1.

That the Senate recede from its disagreement to the amendment of
The House numbered 2, and agree to the same with an amendment as
follows:

In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the House amend¬
ment insert the following:

On page 3, beginning on line 10 and ending on line 23, strike out
paragraph (c).

And the House agree to the same.

Harley M. Kilgore,

James O. Eastland,

Warren G. Magnuson,
Homer Ferguson,

William E. Jenner,

Managers on the Part of the Senate.

Emanuel Celler,

Francis E. Walter,

Louis E. Graham.

Managers on the Part of the House.

STATEMENT OF THE MANAGERS ON THE PART OF THE HOUSE

The managers on the part of the House at the conference on the
disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendments of the House
to the bill (S. 1851) entitled “An act to assist in preventing aliens from
entering or remaining in the United States illegally,” submit the
following statement in explanation of the effect of the action agreed
upon by the conferees and recommended in the accompanying con¬
ference report:

The bill (S. 1851), as it passed the Senate, limited the authority to
make an arrest for a violation of a provision of the act to—- (

(

officers and employees of the United States Immigration and Naturalization
Service designated by the Attorney General, either individually or as a member
of a class, and all other officers of the United States whose duty it is to enforce
criminal laws.

House amendment No. 1 "struck out the words “of the United States”,
so that other officers whose duty it is to enforce criminal laws, would
have authority to make an arrest for a violation of a provision of the
act. The conferees have agreed to House amendment No. 1.

The bill (S. 1851), as it passed the Senate, contained a provision
which reads as follows:

(c) When the Attorney General or any district director or any assistant district
director of the Immigration and Naturalization Service has information indicating
a reasonable probability that in any designated lands or other property aliens are
illegally within the United States, he may issue his warrant authorizing the immi¬
gration officer named therein to go upon or within such designated lands or other
property other than a dwelling in which the warrant states there may be aliens
illegally within the United States, for the purpose of interrogating such aliens con¬
cerning their right to enter or to be or remain in the United States. Such warrant
shall state therein the time of day or night for its use and the period of its validity
in no case shall be for more than thirty days. '

House amendment No. 2 struck out the words “issue his warrant”
in the above-quoted provision as it passed the Senate and inserted in
lieu thereof the words “obtain a warrant under oath from any court
of competent jurisdiction,” so that, instead of issuing warrants pur¬
suant to the language of the provision as it passed the Senate, the
Attorney General, a district director or assistant district director of
the Immigration and Naturalization Service would only be authorized
to obtain warrants from a court of competent jurisdiction.

The comparable provision of the bill as it passed the Senate and
the comparable provision as it passed the House cannot be reconciled
in principle and both provisions contain unnecessary limitations on
the existing power of immigration officials. Therefore, the conferees
have agreed to strike out the provision in its entirety, thus leaving
undisturbed the authority of immigration officers as set forth by the
act of February 27, 1925, as amended (43 Stat. 1049; 54 Stat. 1238;
60 Stat. 865; 8 U. S. C. 110), and in section 16 of the act of February
5, 1917, as amended (39 Stat. 885; 54 Stat. 1223; 54 Stat. 1238; 58
Stat. 714; 60 Stat, 1049; 8 U. S. C. 152).

PREVENT ALIENS ENTERING OR REMAINING IN UNITED STATES 3

The first of the above-cited statutes provides that authorized em¬
ployees “shall have power without warrant” to arrest aliens entering
or attempting to enter the United States in his presence or view and in
violation of law, as well as any alien who is in the United States in
violation of law who is likely to escape before a warrant can he ob¬
tained for his arrest. Also such employees are empowered to make
arrests for felonies which have been committed and which are cogni¬
zable under any law of the United States regulating the exclusion, ex¬
pulsion or admission of aliens if there is reason to believe the person
so arrested is guilty of such offense and there is likelihood of his escap¬
ing before a warrant can be obtained. Moreover, such employees are
empowered to execute any warrant or other process issued by any
officer under an} 7 law regulating the exclusion, or expulsion of aliens.

The second of the above-cited statutes provides that immigrant
- inspectors are “authorized and empowered” to board and search for
F aliens any vessel, railway car, or any other conveyance in which they
believe aliens are being brought into the United States. By the same
section they are empowered to interrogate persons concerning their
right to enter, reenter, pass through, or reside in the United States.
The same statute provides for punishment by imprisonment for a
term of not more than 1 year, or by a fine of $2,000, or both, for any
person who shall assault, resist, prevent, impede, or interfere with
any immigration official in the performance of his duty. If any
person uses any deadly or dangerous weapon in resisting any officer
in the performance of his duty the section provides that he shall be
deemed guilty of a felony and be punished by imprisonment for not
more than 10 years.

Several court decisions have sustained the power of immigration
officers to question aliens concerning their right to be in the country
and to control the activities of third parties where necessary to insure
proper enforcement of the immigration laws (Zakonite v. Wolf, 226
U. S. 272; Lees v. United States, 150 U. S. 476; Head-Money cases,
112 U. S. 580; International Mercantile Marine Co. v. Stranahan,
214 U. S. 344).

The managers on the part of the House believe that the legislation
herewith presented to the House should be approved and accordingly
they recommend the approval of the instant conference report.

Emanuel Celler,

Francis E. Walter,

Louis E. Graham,
Managers on the Part of the House.

OFFICE OF BUDGET AND FINANCE
(For Department Staff Only)

J CONGRESSIONAL
Of -PROCEEDINGS

INTEREST TO THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Issued March 12, 1952
For actions of March 11, 1952
• 82nd—2nd, Ho. 39

CONTENTS

AA Act of 1938 • .••10 Forests*.. 12,24 Price control..-....,.. 18

A-vnropriat ions........... 7 Irrigation.. 13 >25 Price supports....... , 23

Dairy product s.• 23 labor.......» 25 Prices. .... 5

Electrification.. 17- Lands... 4-Purchasing. ... 20

Farm bankruptcy...... • 15,32 Marketing quotas#« 10 Reclamation..••14,33

Fa.rm housing., ,.,•••••»»• 27 -lonopolieg* ...*••••»•**•» 19 Ruobcr* .. 6

Farm -labor. . . 1 Peanuts. 10 Small business......... 7

Farming*....... 28 Personnel.... 2,11,22,34 Tarnation',........ 8,16,21

Foreign aid. 9,26 Water research. 3

HIGHLIGHTS: Senate passed bill rope-ling authority for growing peanuts for oil in
excess of quotas. House. committee ordered reported bill to authorize- research on
making fresh water from sea water. House received conference report on bill to
curb wetback entries. Hep. Richards introduced Mutual Security Act extension bill.
Rep. Murray, Wis., introduced bill to provide "more effective" dairy price supports*

j&IIS

FARM LABOR. Received the conference report on S. 1851. to assist in preventing
aliens from entering or remaining in the U. S, illegally (H, Rent. 1505 ) (pp.
2130-1, 2l64). Majority Leader.iicCormack announced that this bill is to be
considered Thurs., Mar. 13 (p. 2140). As reported by the conferees there would
be retained the House amendment authorizing criminal law enforcement officers to
make an arrest for violation of a provision of the bill; and the provisions re¬
lating to the issuance or obtaining of warrants by immigration authorities was
stricken from the bill, thus leaving unchanged the existing authorities for
search and arrest.

iERSOFHEL. Passed with amendment S. 2077, to provide for the Civil Service Com-
>n to conduct loyalty investigations rather than the FBI (pp. 2l4(>^
Agreedva^gin amendment by-Rep. Bovs •♦ to require thgjiall re< 1 files

compiled byW&e CSC under the bill be made available to Congress nrnittees

upon reques t (pp. **83^4-7). •

3 . WATER RESEARCH. The InteriofN^d Insular Affairs j^fUPnitt-ee ordered reported

(but did not actually report) H." : 'S s%(i 6572, to provide for research into

and demonstration of practical means economical production, from sea.

or other saline waters, of water su^?^6le 'f^c. agricultural, industrial, munici¬
pal, and other beneficial cons^p^i^’e uses (pdi^).

4. RE CHEAT I ORAL LARDS. T^**£ntcrior and Insular Affairs Committee reported with

amendment H. R. to amend the act of June l4, 192c, "an act to authorize

acquisition op^Ese of public lands by States, counties, or municipalities for

■recreatij^oefl purposes, n to include other public purposes and to permit nonpro-

'nizations to lease public lands for certain purposes (H. Rept. 1509)
p £k^ ’ -

A reported ('but Aid not actually report)
ntenan.ce "bill to make effective the f/ir

msr).

PRICES. The Judiciary Committee ordere>
E. R. 6925 , amended, "resale price mai:
trade laws of the various States" (p. '

SENATE

RUBBER. The Armed Services Committee ordered reported (hut did not actually re¬
port') H. E. 6787 , extending the Eahher Act of 1948 for 2 years, until June 30,
1954 Vp. D 196 ). /

SMALL BUSINESS. Pens. Fogarty, E. I., Patman, Tex., and Canfield,/ft. J., urged
appropriations for the Small Defe-nse Plants Administration, and .Rep. Fogaruy
announced that he intends to propose an amendment to the Third,,-Supplemental Ap¬
propriation hill to provide 'such appropriations (pp. 2131 , 2 JL 58 - 9 , 2l6o-l).

8 .

'TAXATION. Eeu. garrison, Nebr. , inserted a letter from thc/publisher of the
Ashland (Nebr.) bquette protesting high taxes and waste j/id -extravagance in
Government (p. 21 j

FOREIGN AIL. Received/.from the'State Department the fourth report «n aid to
Yugoslavia, (H. Doc. 392), (p. 2164).

10 .

11 .

PEANUTS. Passed without amendment S. 2697 , amending the Agricultural Adjust¬
ment Act of 1938 to repeal th\authority for/CCC to purchase peanuts for oil
which are grown in excess of ma\keting quojf&s (p. 2113/•

PERSONNEL. The Post Office and Civil Service Committee reported without amend¬
ment S. Res. 288, to extend until Jhn.. Jl, 1953 the authority of that Committee
to investigate personnel needs and n^ictices of the various Government agencies
(S. Rcpt. 1293)'(p. 2098); to Rale s/am Administration'Committee.

12 .

FORESTS. The Foreign Relations Committee ordered reported-(hut did not actual¬
ly renort) S. 1835, granting t/e consent of Congress to Canadian participa¬
tion in the Northeastern Interstate Forest 'Fire Protection Compact (p. 13.94).

13.

i4.

IRRIGATION. The Interior and Insular Affairs Committee ordered reported (hut
did not actually report) without amendment H. R/ 3144, to make certain con¬
struction cost adjustments in connection with the \Greenfields division 01 the
Sun River (Mont.) Irrigation Project (p. Dip4).

RECLAMATION. The Int/rior and Insular Affairs Committee ordered reported (hut
did not actually report), pending receipt of a report 1 npm Interior Department,
S. 2610, providing "that excess-land provisions of Federal reclamation lava,
shall not apply to certain lands receiving water supply from the San Luis Val¬
ley (Colo.) project (p. D195) •

15 .

FARM BANKRUPTCY. The Judiciary Committee ordered reported (hut’did not actually
renort) vita amendments the lie Car ran-Hayden substitute for S. 25, to add a
farm bari&ruotcy title to the Bankruptcy Act (p. D195)•

16.

TAXATIQN. Sen. Flanders inserted e resolution of Newport, Vt., citizens pro¬
testing high income taxes and urging reductions in Government appropriations

U 2097-S).

iicECTR I FI CAT I ON. Sen. Welker inserted a constituent’s letter opposing Federal
"construction of the Hells Canyon (Idaho) electric power project (pp. 2123-4).

1952 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE . 2129

There being no objection, the edito¬
rialVas ordered to be printed in the Rec¬
ord, as follows:

The Senate’s Big Opportunity

After all the shouting at the Capitol over
the scandals in the Internal Revenue Bureau,
there is something incongruous in the hedg¬
ing that has been taking place on the Senate
side over the administration’s plan for clean¬
ing up the Bureau. The demands for Ex¬
ecutive reform brought, among other actions,
a Presidential proposal for a sweeping re¬
organization of the tax-collection agency in
line with recommendations of the Hoover
Commission. But that proposal had* as one
of its main provisions the freeing of the
collection system from the pressures and
temptations of political patronage. That s
was the hitch. Senators have never been
enthusiastic, as a group, about relinquishing
any patronage rights. It is not surprising
that the reorganization plan, after House
approval, has met with trouble in the Senate
Executive Expenditures Committee.

President Truman’s urgent request to the
Senate for approval of the plan followed in¬
dications that the -bill might be held up for
further study by the committee. A refusal
of the Senate to accept the reorganization
plan now would kill it for this session. If
there is no adverse vote in the Senate before
March 14, the plan automatically will be¬
come operative. To reject the proposal now
in favor of further study would be a delaying
action that would be inconsistent with sen¬
atorial cries for prompt revenue reforms. If
the critics of the President’s plan had some¬
thing better to offer, their warnings against
too much haste in reorganization could be
justified. But no better plan than that
calling for removal of collectors from polities
has yet been produced.

The pending plan, as Revenue Commis¬
sioner Dunlap has pointed out to the com¬
mittee, embraces the main points of the
Hoover Commission’s programs and of other
groups which have studied the Bureau’s de¬
fects. Mr. Dunlap has answered effectively
a number of questions raised by opponents
of the plan—but it is an open secret that
the main bone of contention is the proposed
substitution of civil-service selection of col¬
lectors for political appointments.

The President’s latest message in support
of the legislation has the effect of placing
responsibility for effective house cleaning at
the Internal Revenue Bureau on the Senate.
If the Senate blocks this chance to place the
tax-collection agency on a merit basis, its

outcries over corruption and inefficiency in
the Government will take on a very hollow
ring.

RACIAL EQUALITY—EDITORIAL FROM
LIFE MAGAZINE

Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, re¬
cently there was published in Life maga¬
zine—I believe it appeared in its most
recent issue—an editorial entitled “The
Shengs and Democracy.” The editorial
refers to a gentleman of Chinese ances¬
try who, while living in the United
States, encountered a great deal of diffi¬
culty in the exercise of what he consid¬
ered to be natural rights and legal rights
as a resident of this country.

I commend a reading of the editorial
to every Member of this body. I think it
will provoke a reawakening in regard to
some of the difficulties existing in sec¬
tions of the country .other than the
South, where similar difficulties are all
too often referred to. The editorial dis¬
cusses the situation in the West, in my
section of the country, arid in the East,
where persons of va/ious nationalities
and of various racial origins have done
much to advance the welfare and prog¬
ress of the Republic.

There being no objection, the editorial
was ordered to be printed in the Record,
as follows:

The Shengs and Democracy

Mr. Sing Sheng placed a bet on American
democracy and lost it. In Asia they will,
therefore, be asking whether American de¬
mocracy is worth betting on. It still is.

Sheng, a United States college graduate
and a former Nationalist Chinese intelli¬
gence officer, is an airline mechanic in south
San Francisco. He wanted to buy a small
house for his growing family in Southwood,
a suburb near the airport where he works.
When he learned that some of the all-Cau¬
casian residents of Southwood did not want
a Chinese neighbor, he proposed that the
question be put to a vote. To all residents
he wrote: “We think so highly of democracy
because it offers freedom and equality.
America’s forefathers fought for these prin¬
ciples and won the independence of 1776.
* * * Do not make us the victims of false
democracy. Please vote for us.” The other
side was summed up by a builder who said,
“People must stick together to protect their
property rights.” Sheng lost, 174 to 28, with

14 abstentions. Said he bitterly, when the
votes were counted, “I hope your property
values will go up every 3 days.”

The response to the Sheng case has been
strong and Nation-wide. Other cities have
offered him a Job and a home. There is a
move in south San Francisco Itself to make
amends. Since Sheng's original purpose was
not to put democracy on the spot but simply
to find a better place to live, the outcome for
him is likely to be satisfactory. That is one
minor count for American democracy.

Another is the fact that Sheng could have
moved into the Southwood house if he had
wanted to make an issue of it. The restric¬
tive covenant is legally unenforceable; so
says the Supreme Court. But Sheng made
What he calls a "gentleman’s agreement” to
abide by the outcome of the balloting. In
other words he tactfully asks more of our
democracy than law can provide. He asks
what the United States at present merely
aspires to, namely complete absence of prej¬
udice between man and man.

In fact the people of Southwood were less
prejudiced against Sheng than against losing
money. The market value of group preju¬
dice is the key to the segregation problem in
the United States. During the last 10 years
the United States has made revolutionary
progress toward racial equality. If this
progress continues, prejudice should even¬
tually even lose its market value. It had
better, for the national costs of discrimina¬
tion are exceedingly high. Segregated slums
yield only about 6 percent of the typical
city’s taxes, but use a third of its fire and
almost a half of its police protection. The
underemployment of Negro talents and skills
is even more wasteful. According to the
Urban League the total economic cost of dis¬
crimination in a city like New York is at least
$1,000,000,000 a' year.

This loss is at least as real as the one the
calculating householders of Southwood
think they have avoided. When we outgrow
group prejudice fn this country, the South-
wood type of property loss would be incon¬
ceivable, and the present cost of discrimi¬
nation will be turned into a big gain for all.

RECESS

Mr. LONG. Mr. President, I move
that the Senate stand in recess until to¬
morrow, at 12 o’clock noon.

The motion was agreed to; and (at 4
o’clock and 34 minutes p. m.) the Senate
took a recess until tomorrow, Wednes¬
day, March 12, 1952, at 12 o’clock me¬
ridian.

No. 39-5

House of Representatives

The House met at 12 o’clock noon.

The Chaplain, Rev. Bernard Braskamp,
D. D„ offered the following prayer:

Almighty God, we beseech Thee to
guide, sustain, and encourage us in all
the noble and worthy undertakings of
this day.

May each new day be better than yes¬
terday and prophetic of a radiant to¬
morrow as we strive to be coworkers with
Thee and with one another in the great
moral and spiritual enterprise of achiev¬
ing blessedness for all mankind.

We penitently confess that there are
times when the ideals which we cherish
seem so visionary, the outlook for a finer
social order appears so gloomy, our lofti¬
est impulses are frustrated, and our
hearts are filled with fear and fore¬
boding.

Forgive us for allowing doubt and cyn¬
icism to find lodgment in our souls and
for permitting any sinister thoughts and
feelings to eclipse our faith, blur our
hope, and extinguish our love.

May we be confident that we have not
been created for failure but for victory
and that in Thine own good time all Thy
gracious promises: shall be gloriously
fulfilled.

In Christ’s name we offer our prayers.
Amen.

THE JOURNAL

The Journal of the proceedings of yes¬
terday was read and approved.

MESSAGES FROM THE SENATE

A message from the Senate, by Mr.
Landers, its enrolling clerk, announced
that the Senate insists upon its amend¬
ments to the bill (H. R. 4645) entitled
“An act for the relief of Mrs. Marguerite
A. Brumell,” disagreed to by the House;
agrees to the conference asked by the
House on the disagreeing votes of the
two Houses thereon, and appoints Mr.
Magnuson, Mr. O’Conor, and Mr. Hen¬
drickson to be the conferees on the part
of the Senate.

CLAIM OF ROBERT E. VIGUS

The SPEAKER. The Chair lays be¬
fore the House the following commu¬
nication from the Clerk of the House:

March 10, 1952.
The honorable the Speaker,

House of Representatives.

Sir : Pursuant to authority granted on
March 10, 1952, the Clerk received today from
the Secretary of the Senate the following'
message:

That the Senate has passed without
amendment House Concurrent Resolution
203, entitled “Concurrent resolution request¬
ing the return of the enrollment of H. R.
3219 and the reenrollment thereof.”

Very truly yours,

Ralph R. Roberts,

Clerk of the House of Representatives.
PREVENTING ILLEGAL ENTRY OF ALIENS

Mr. CELLER submitted the following
conference report and statement on the

Tuesday, March 11,1952

bill (S. 1851) to assist in preventing
aliens from entering or remaining in the
United States illegally:

Conference Report (H. Rept. No. 1505)

The committee of conference on the dis¬
agreeing votes of the two Houses on the
amendments of the House to the bill (S.
1851) entitled “An act to assist in prevent¬
ing aliens from entering or remaining in the
United States illegally,” having met, after
full and free conference, have agreed to rec¬
ommend and do recommend to their respec¬
tive Houses as follows:

That the Senate recede from its disagree¬
ment to the amendment of the House num¬
bered 1.

That the Senate recede from its disagree¬
ment to the amendment of the House num¬
bered 2, and agree to the same with an
amendment as follows: In lieu of the matter
proposed to be inserted by the House amend¬
ment insert the following:

On page 3, beginning on line 10 and end¬
ing on line 23, strike out paragraph (c).

And the House agree to the same.

Emanuel Celler,

Francis E. Walter,

Louis E. Graham,

Managers on the Part of the House.
Harley M. Kilgore,

James O. Eastland,

Warren G. Magnuson,
Homer Ferguson,

William E. Jenner,

Managers on the Part of the Senate.

Statement

The managers on the part of the House
at the conference on the disagreeing votes of
the two Houses on the amendments of the
House to the bill (S. 1851) entitled “An act
to assist in preventing aliens from entering
or remaining in the United States illegally,”
submit the following statement in explana¬
tion of the effect of the action agreed upon
by the conferees and recommended in the
accompanying conference report:

The bill (S. 1851), as it passed the Senate,
limited the authority to make an arrest for
a violation of a provision of the act to
“officers and employees of the United States
Immigration and Naturalization Service
designated by the Attorney General, either
individually or as a member of a class, and
all other officers of the United States whose
duty it is to enforce criminal laws.” House
amendment No. 1 struck out the words “of
the United States”, so that other officers
whose duty it is to enforce criminal laws,
would have authority to make an arrest for
a violation of a provision of the act. The
conferees have agreed to House amendment
No. 1.*

The bill (S. 1851), as it passed the Senate,
contained a provision which reads as follows:

“(c) When the Attorney General or any
district director or any assistant district di¬
rector gf the Immigration and Naturaliza¬
tion Service has information indicating a
reasonable probability that in any designated
lands or other property aliens are illegally
within the United States, he may issue his
warrant authorizing the Immigration officer
named therein to go upon or within such
designated lands or other property other
than a dwelling in which the warrant states
there may be aliens Illegally within the
United States, for the purpose of interro¬
gating such aliens concerning their right

to enter or to be or remain in the United
States. Such warrant shall state therein
the time of day or night for its use and
the period of its Validity in no case shall
be for more than 30 days.”

House amendment No. 2 struck out the
words “issue his warrant” in the above-
quoted provision as it passed the Senate and
inserted in lieu thereof the words “obtain
a warrant under oath from any court of
competent jurisdiction,” so that, instead of
issuing warrants pursuant to the language of
the provision as it passed the Senate, the
Attorney General, a district director or as¬
sistant district director of the Immigration
and Naturalization Service would only be
authorized to obtain warrants from a court
of competent jurisdiction.

The comparable provision of the bill as it
passed the Senate and the comparable provi¬
sion as it passed the House cannot be recon¬
ciled in principle and both provisions con¬
tain unnecessary limitations on the existing
power of immigration officials. Therefore,
the conferees have agreed to strike out the
provision in its entirety, thus leaving un¬
disturbed the authority of immigration offi¬
cers as set forth by the act of February 27,
1925, as amended (43 Stat. 1049; 54 Stat.
1238; 60 Stat. 865; 8 U. S. C. 110), and in sec¬
tion 16 of the act of February 5, 1917, as
amended (39 Stat. 885; 54 Stat. 1223; 54 Stat.
1238; 58 Stat. 714; 60 Stat. 1049; 8 U. S. C.
152).

The first of the above-cited statutes pro¬
vides that authorized employees “shall have
power without warrant” to arrest aliens en¬
tering or attempting to enter the United
States in his presence or view and in viola¬
tion of law, as well as any alien who is in
the United States in violation of law who is
likely to escape before a warrant can be ob¬
tained for his arrest. Also such employees
are empowered to make arrests for felonies
which have been committed and which are
cognizable under any law of the United
States regulating the exclusion, expulsion or
admission of aliens if there is reason to be¬
lieve the person so arrested is guilty of such
offense and there is likelihood of his escap¬
ing before a warrant can be obtained. More¬
over, such employees are empowered to
execute any warrant or other process issued
by any officer under any law regulating the
exclusion, or expulsion of aliens.

The second of the above-cited statutes
provides that immigrant inspectors are “au¬
thorized and empowered” to board and
search for aliens any vessels, railway car, or
any other conveyance in which they believe
aliens are being brought into the United
States. By the same section they are em¬
powered to interrogate persons concerning
their right to enter, reenter, pass through,
or reside in the United States. The same
statute provides for punishment by impris¬
onment for a term of not more than 1 year,
or by a fine of $2,000, or both, for any per¬
son who shall assault, resist, prevent, impede,
or interfere with any immigration official
in the performance of his duty. If any
person uses any deadly or dangerous weapon
in resisting any officer in the performance of
his duty the section provides that he shall
be deemed guilty of a felony and be pun¬
ished by imprisonment for not more than
10 years.

Several court decisions have sustained the
power of immigration officers to question
aliens concerning their right to be in the
country and to control the activities of third

2130

March 11, 1952 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE 2131

parties where necessary to Insure proper
enforcement of the immigration laws (Za-
konite v. Wolf, 226 U. S. 272; Lees v. United
States, 150 U. S. 476; Head-Money cases, 112
U. S. 580; International Mercantile Marine
Co. v. Stranahan, 214 TJ. S. 344).

The managers on the part of the House
helieve that the legislation herewith pre¬
sented to the House should be approved and
accordingly they recommend the approval of
the instant conference report.

Emanuel Celler,

Francis E. Walter,

Louis E. Graham,

Managers on the Part of the House.

PROTEST AGAINST HIGH TAXES IN VIEW
OF WASTE AND EXTRAVAGANCE

(Mr. HARRISON of Nebraska asked
and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute and to revise and ex¬
tend his remarks.)

Mr. HARRISON of Nebraska. Mr.
Speaker, I, too, have a letter from one of
my constituents about taxes. This letter
could have been written by any constitu¬
ent in any part of the United States to
any Congressman. I will read it:

The Ashland Gazette,
Ashland, Nebr., March 8, 1952,
Collector of Internal Revenue,

Treasury Department,

United States Government.

Gentlemen ; Even though I am required by
law to pay income tax for 1951 and make a
declaration of tax for 1952, I wish to hereby
declare that I do so under protest.

This protest is registered because of glar¬
ing Federal Government corruption and im¬
morality, which has resulted in waste and
extravagance such as the world has never
known before. There are thousands of ex- ■
amples of wastje of my money and that of all
other American taxpayers. They stem direct¬
ly from the scandals and Investigations of
Government bureaus, Armed Forces procure¬
ment and foreign aid, but to try and list
them is not the purpose of this letter. It is
enough to know that they exist.

However, I do wish to go on record that,
under the present •circumstances, I protest
the payment of this money which means so
much to me and my family, but apparently
means nothing to the Government of which
I am supposed to be ah integral part.

According to instructions from your de¬
partment a social-secuiity tax has now been
imposed upon practically all self-employed
persons. Webster’s Dictionary gives the full
meaning of the word “impose” and as a free
American citizen -1 do not appreciate being
imposed upon.

In closing, please understand that all of
us are willing to support by taxes the normal
functions of government.

Yours very truly,

M. C, Howe,

Owner and Publisher.

ARMY PROCUREMENT AND SMALL
BUSINESS

(Mr. PATTERSON asked and was
given permission to address the House
for 1 minute and to revise and extend
his remarks.)

[Mr. PATTERSON addressed the
House. His remarks appear in the Ap¬
pendix of today’s Record.]

FORMULA FOR PRICE DECONTROL

(Mr. BURLESON asked and was given
permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his re¬
marks.)

Mr. BURLESON. Mr. Speaker, I have
just introduced a measure which pro¬
poses to amend the Defense Production

Act of 1950 by providing legislative
standards for the suspension of price
controls. When the test of the standards
is met, decontrol would be mandatory.

Two basic requirements shall be de¬
termining: First, the material or com¬
modity is by its nature not susceptible
to speculative buying; second, not more
than 10 percent of the total national out¬
put of the material or commodity is pur¬
chased with Federal funds for defense
purposes.

Mr. Speaker, an example of the pur¬
poses of this amendment is the removal
of price ceilings on crude petroleum. An
unrealistic price ceiling has been imposed
upon crude-oil production, with the re¬
sult that the industry has been depressed.
It has only been through outstanding
and unparalleled expansion that the in¬
dustry has been able to overcome threat¬
ened shortages atid meet all require¬
ments for civilian needs as well as for
defense efforts. The need for further
expansion of oil-producing facilities of
this Nation is recognized by those in re¬
sponsible positions. Because of the ex¬
treme essentiality of Oil to the modem
military machine, the accomplishment
of the required expansion program is of
utmost importance to thfe Congress and
the American people and , is entitled to
the greatest consideration.

In contrast with the sharp increases
which have occurred in the 'price of al¬
most every other commodity df our econ¬
omy during the past 4 years,, crude-oil
prices have not advanced since 1947, even
after Korea.

It is peculiar to the oil industry that
controls have a depressing effect upon
expansion and discovery of new reserves,
and only by the minimum exercfce of
Government controls and regulations, can
the oil industry be encouraged to meet
the demands made upon it for natiohal
defense and civilian use called for by the
Petroleum Administration for Defense.

Mr. Speaker, I am including a more
complete statement on this subject in
the Appendix of the Record.
"APPROPRIATION FOR SMALL DEFENSE
PLANTS ADMINISTRATION

(Mr. FOGARTY asked and was given
permission to address the House for 1
minute.)

Mr. FOGARTY. Mr. Speaker, several
Members have called my office this morn¬
ing to inquire about the action taken
by the Committee on Appropriations in
deleting all funds for the Small Defense
Plants Administration which is the only
independent agency in Government that
can be of any help to small-business
firms of this country.

I have advised each and every one
of them who called me this morning that
on yesterday I made ti^e statement that
when the supplemental appropriation
bill is before the House on tomorrow I
will offer an amendment -restoring the
funds so that the Small Defense Plants
Administration can do something for
small business. I think it is about time
that the membership of this House de¬
cide one way or the other whether or
not they want to help small business.
We have been doing a lot of talking about
it for the past 2 or 3 years. We will
have a chance now to live up to our

promise to small business on tomorrow
When we vote for continuation of the
Small Defense Plants Administration.
INVESTIGATION AND STUDY OF THE
KATYN FOREST MASSACRE

Mr. MADDEN. Mr. Speaker, by di¬
rection of the Rules Committee I call
up House Resolution 539.

The Clerk read the resolution, as fol¬
lows?,

Resolved, That the second, third, and
fourth paragraphs of House Resolution 390,
Eighty-Second Congress, are amended to read
as follows:

“The oommittee is authorized and directed
to conduct a full and complete investiga¬
tion and-, study of the facts, evidence, and
extenuating circumstances both before and
j after the massacre of thousands of Polish
officers buried in mass graves in the Katyn
Forest on the banks of the Dnieper River
in the vicinity of Smolensk, Union of Soviet
Socialist Republics, which was then a Nazi-
occupied territory formerly having been oc¬
cupied and under the control of the Union
of Soviet Socialist Republics.

“Upon completing the necessary hearings,
the committee shall report to the House
of Representatives (or the Clerk of the House,
if the House is not in session) before Janu¬
ary 3, 1953, the results of its Investigation
and study, together with any recommenda¬
tions which the committee shall deem ad¬
visable.

“For the purpose of carrying out this reso¬
lution the committee, or any subcommittee
thereof, is authorized to sit and act during
the present Congress at such times and
places within or outside the United States,
whether the House 1 is in session, has re¬
cessed, or has adjourned, to hold hearings,
and to require, by subpena or otherwise,
the attendance and testimony of such wit¬
nesses and the production of such books,
records, correspondence, memoranda, papers,
and documents as it deems necessary. Sub-
penas may be issued under the signature
of the chairman of the committee or any
member of the committee designated by him,
and may be served by any person designated
by such chairman or member.”

(Mr. MADDEN asked and was given
permission to reVise and extend his re¬
marks and to include extraneous mat-
, ter.)

Mr. MADDEN. Mr. Speaker, House
Resolution 593 amends the original reso¬
lution creating the Katyn Investigating
Committee House Resolution 390. This
amendment gives permission to the Con¬
gress to conduct hearings outside of the
United States.

Since the Katyn committee was au¬
thorized by Congress, a great deal of
testimony and essential evidence has
come to the attention of the committee
from both within and without the bor¬
ders of the United States. Before Con¬
gress adjourned last September, the com¬
mittee heard the testimony of Lt. Col.
Donald B. Stewart. It was unanimously
agreed at that time by the members of
the committee that further hearings
would be resumed after Congress recon¬
vened in January. In the meantime, the
counsel and office force of the committee
were busy preparing for the hearings.

On Monday, February 4, the commit¬
tee held hearings for several days of the
following witnesses: Father Leopold
Braun, A. A., New York, N. Y.; Henry
Clarence Cassidy; John Doe; Marion
(Mike) Gawiak, Port Colborne, Canada;
George Grobicki; Tadeusz Rome 7 *, former

2132 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE March 11

Polish Ambassador to Russia, Montreal,
Quebec, Canada; Col. John H. Van Vliet,
Jr.; Col. J. B. Gielgud.

The publicity given in this country
and abroad to the testimony presented by
these witnesses has brought forth a great
number of potential witnesses from
abroad in addition to the witnesses and
testimony that the committee had al¬
ready obtained. It is plainly evident that
the results of the work of our committee
has created a great reaction both behind
the iron curtain and outside the iron
curtain. For a considerable period of
time the newspapers in Russia and the
satellite countries refused to print any
news regarding the Select Committee to
Investigate the Katyn Forest Massacre,
This policy of silence on the Katyn mas¬
sacre proceedings by the iron-curtain
newspapers has changed radically. Ac¬
cording to the Associated Press dispatch
from Moscow on March 3,1952, the Rus¬
sian paper, Pravda, devoted 2M> columns
to republishing the text of the conclu¬
sions reached by the hand-picked Rus¬
sian committee which reported on the
Katyn massacre in January 1944. An¬
other Associated Press dispatch on the
same date stated that the entire Polish
press reprinted the same statement.
The News Week magazine in its edition
2 weeks ago in the column entitled “The
Periscope” made the following state¬
ment:

Score One

Insiders say the House inquiry into the
Katyn massacre—the mass murder of Polish
soldiers by either Russians or Germans—has
scored a propaganda coup in satellite coun¬
tries. The point is that the United States
is probing a crime in which no Americans
were affected—the best antidote to Red
propaganda that the west has forgotten its
former supporters behind the iron curtain.

In this morning’s Congressional Rec¬
ord on page A1592 is reprinted an article
from the New York Herald Tribune of
last Sunday, setting out the fact that
“the inquiry into the death of the Polish
soldiers in the Katyn Forest worries the
Russians.”

I hope that all Members of Congress
read this article by Robert L. Moora in
Sunday’s Herald Tribune.

Without taking up the time of the Con¬
gress reviewing the testimony which has
already been presented at committee
hearings and the fact that all Members
are familiar with the remarks made on
the floor of the House during the last
month concerning Katyn, I believe that
the adoption of this amendment giving
authority to our committee to record the
great amount of testimony from this
international crime which is available in
London, Paris, and Berlin is highly essen¬
tial and very necessary to combat the
psychological warfare which the Soviets
are so experienced in waging.

The Rules Committee reported out
House Resolution 539 unanimously.

I wish at this time to call the atten¬
tion of the Congress to a press release
which was issued by the Embassy repre¬
senting the present Polish Government
in Washington.

At this point I incorporate in my re¬
marks the exact press release issued by
the Polish Embassy on March 3, 1952, at
6p. m.:

Polish Statement on Madden Committee

The Polish Government Issued on Febru¬
ary 29,1952, a statement on the Madden com¬
mittee of the United States House of Repre¬
sentatives. The text, translated from the
Polish, follows:

"For several months American propaganda
has made an effort to publicize the spec¬
tacular sessions of the so-called special com¬
mittee of the House of Representatives in
the Katyn case. The staging of this farce
and the unleashing of a campaign based
upon it, the provocative aim of which is
evident, are links in a general United States
Government propaganda plan which in turn
is part of aggressive preparations for war.

"Behind the scenes of this campaign stand
the notorious protectors of neo-Hitlerite re¬
venge aims, the enemies of peace, democracy
and the Polish people, such as Mr. Arthur
Bliss Lane, who whole holding the position
of Ambassador of the United States in War¬
saw, did not hesitate to take a personal part
in the organization of actions directed against
the Polish State and its independence and
who, since his return to the United States,
has specialized in vile slanders against Po¬
land and the U. S. S. R.; such as, also, a
member of the special committee, Mr.
Q’Konski, who during World War H was con¬
nected with nazi agencies in the United
States.

"T\e appointment of the special com¬
mittee ..coincides with the appropriation by
the United States Congress of $100,000,000
for diverslpnist-espionage activities in other
countries, sanong them Poland. It is a com¬
ponent part gf that criminal action aimed
against the peace of the world.

"The extermination in Katyn of thousands
c- Polish officers tod soldiers was the work
of nazi criminals who, in addition to the
Katyn crime, committed hundreds of simi¬
lar crimes on Polish tod Soviet soil. The
Katyn crime was one liiik in the nazi cam¬
paign aimed at the physical extermination
of the Polish people and consistently car¬
ried out during the occupation The Katyn
crime was the work of those rt^zi genocidal
criminals whom American authorities today
are releasing from prison and \wmse serv¬
ices they engage for the preparation of new
crimes against the Polish people and against
all peace-loving nations.

“From the start the Polish people, Who
have had first-hand experience with Nasi
methods of slaughter as applied to Os-
wiecim, Majdanek, and many other death
camps in Poland, never had any doubt what¬
ever but that the monstrous Katyn crime
was the work of Nazi gangsters. The lies of
Nazi propaganda were ultimately exposed
as such by evidence accumulated and incon¬
testably established in the presence of Po¬
lish representatives by a special Soviet com¬
mission for the establishment and investi¬
gation of circumstances surrounding the
shooting by Facist German invaders of Po¬
lish officers who were prisoners of war.

“The whole world passed judgment on the
Nazi murders of Katyn, just as it judged all
their monstrous crimes in concentration
camps and in thousands of cities and vil¬
lages of occupied Europe.

"Genocide goes hand in hand with provo¬
cation. In 1943 Goebbels tried to make use
of the bodies of Nazi victims for a monstrous
provocation against the Soviet Union, whose
army at that time was smashing the Nazi
war machine.

"In 1952 those involved in the mass mur¬
der of war prisoners in Korea, much like
those Nazis who prepare for a new criminal
world war, try to revive the Goebbels trick.
By renewing the Katyn provocation, they
seek 'to divert the attention of the nations
of the world from the reconstruction of a
neo-Hitlerite Wehrmacht as an American
tool against world peace.

"As far back as 1943 Nazi propaganda,
obediently supported by the reactionary

London clique of Polish emigres, was unsuc¬
cessful in misleading world opinion or the
opinion of the Polish people. Even the very
authors of this provocation, Goebbels and
Frank, could not help admitting that their
provocation had found no echo in the Po¬
lish nation. So much less does the new
version of this provocation in an American
edition find an echo now. Those who sup¬
pose that this provocation will attain any of
its aims are deluding themselves. The
murderers of Korean children and women
will not succeed in concealing the guilt of
the Nazi murders of Katyn, nor in rehabil¬
itating them for the purpose of exploiting
them for new crimes.

“The Polish people look with loathing
upon the attempts of American ruling circles
to use poisoned weapons inherited from
Goebbels, attempts aimed at obliterating the
traces of Nazi crimes and at base incite¬
ment against the peoples of the Soviet
Union, who bore the main burden of the
fight to rout naziism. Every Pole regards
with outrage and contempt these calumnies
and provocations, these cynical attempts to
prey upon the tragic death of thousands of
Polish citizens suffered at the hands of Nazi
murderers.

"The government and the people of Po¬
land condemn most sharply this provocative
action of the United States aimed against
peace-loving nations, against those nations
which suffered most from Nazi invasion and
Nazi crimes.”

This propaganda release from the
Polish Embassy breaks all precedent as
far as flagrant violations of diplomatic
rules and time honored Embassy proce¬
dure is concerned. This release is noth¬
ing more than brazen communistic prop¬
aganda issued almost under the shadow
of the Capitol dome. The insulting text
of the Polish Embassy press release
proves conclusively that the Katyn in¬
vestigation is exposing and damaging the
Soviet imposed regime in Poland. The
preliminary Communist attempts to si¬
lence all news and comment about the
investigation have failed. This press re¬
lease propaganda is not only an insult
to the Katyn committee, but an insult to
this Congress and the Government of the
United States. It has been chosen as the
weapon for counteracting the effect of
the investigation on the enslaved Polish
people.

We know that millions from various
nations and races have been massacred,
murdbred and burned in ovens during
the last l5 years by both Stalin and Hit¬
ler. We Xnow now that both savage dic¬
tators and their henchmen have been
guilty of tortures, mass murders, geno¬
cide and other international crimes.
Hitler and most of his henchmen have
paid the penalty" for their deeds. The
hearings on the Katyn Forest murders
are unfolding the fact slowly but surely
that the Katyn massacres were but a
small part of the well-oi l ganized effort of
mass human extermination. Mass mur¬
der and genocide is part of the felonious
process used by Communist dictators to
subjugate nations and races in their mad
drive for world conquest.

Communist propaganda emitting from
the Polish Embassy in Washington is a
brazen example of the Communist influ¬
ence in bankrupting the moral fiber and
respectability of human beings.

At the Polish Embassy in Washington,
we have men who no doubt are descend-
ents of valiant and heroic Polish ances¬
tors. Their ancestors have fought for the

1952

co:

Miller, Md.

Rogers, Fla.

Thomas

Miller, Nebr.

Rogers, Tex.

Thompson,

Mills

Ross

Mich.

Morton

St. George

Thornberry

Mumma

Schenck

Vail

Murray, Tenn.

Schwabe

Van Pelt

Nelson

Scrivner

Velde

Nicholson

Scudder

Wharton

Norblad

Shafer

Wheeler

Ostertag

Simpson, Ill.

Whitten*

Passman

Sittler

Williams, Miss.

Patman

Smith, Kans.

Williams, N. Y.

Patten

Smith, Miss.

Willis

Pickett

Smith, Va.
Smith, Wis.

Wilson, Ind.

Poage

Wilson, Tex.

Redden

Spence

Winstead

Reed, IU.

Stanley

Wolcott

Reed, N. Y.

Taber

Wood, Idaho

Rees, Kans.
Robeson

Talle \
Teague

Woodruff

Aandahl
Addontzio
Allen, Ill.
Barden
Battle
Bender
Blatnik
Boykin
Brown, Ohio
Brownson
Buchanan
Buckley
Budge
Burton
Camp
Cannon
Carnahan
Case
Celler
Chatham
Chudoff
Clevenger
Cole, Kans.
Combs
Cooley
Coudert
Cox

Davis, Tenn.

Delaney

Dingell

Dollinger

Donovan

Doughton

Doyle

Durham

Fernandez

Gamble

Gwinn

Hall,

Edwin Arthur

NOT VOTING—113
Hall,

Leonard W.
Halleck
Harden
Harvey
Hedrick
Heffernan
Heller
Herter
Hillings
Hope
Horan
Hull
Hunter
Jackson, Calif,
Javits
Judd
Kean
Kee

Kennedy
Keogh

Kersten, Wis.
Kluczynski
Larcade
Latham
McGrath
McKinnon
Magee
Marshall
Martin, Iowa
Merrow
Mitchell
Morrison
Moulder
Multer
Murdock
Murphy
Murray, Wis.
O’Brien, Mich.
O’Konski

Qsmers

Phillips

Potter

Powell

Prouty

Radwan

Rains

Ramsay

Reece, Tenn.

Regan

Riehlman

Rivers

Roberts

Rogers, Mass.

Roosevelt

Sabath

Sadlak

Sasscer

Scott, Hardle

Secrest

Sheehan

Short

Sikes

Simpson, Pa.

Staggers

Stockman

Sutton

Tackett

Taylor

Walter

Weichel

Welch

Werdel

Widnall

Wood, Ga.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE

Mr. Blatnlk with Mr. Radwan.

Mr. Camp with Mr. Reeoe of Tennessee.
Mr. Chudoff with Mrs. Harden.

Mr. Donovan with Mr. Budge.

Mr. Powell with Mr. Kersten of Wisconsin.
Mr. Roosevelt with Mr. Stockman
Mr. Sutton with Mr. Martin of Iowa.

Mr. McGrath with Mr. Harvey.

Mr. Kennedy with Mr. Aandahl.

Mr. Cooley with Mr. Cole of Kansas.

Mr. Cox with Mr. Murray of Wisconsin.

Mr. Davis of Tennessee with Mr. Phillips.
Mr. Moulder with Mr. Potter.

Mr. O’Brien of Michigan with Mr. Hull.

Mr. Rains with Mr. Hunter.

Mr. Wood of Georgia with Mr. Hillings.

Mr. Secrest with Mr. Hope.

Mr. Murdock with Mr. Riehlman.

Messrs. Holifield, Miller of New York,
and Angell changed their vote from
“nay” to “yea.”

Messrs. August H. Andresen and
Engle changed their vote from “yea” to
“nay.”

The result of the vote was announced
as above recorded.

The SPEAKER. The question is on
the resolution.

Mr. MARTIN of Massachusetts. Mr.
Speaker, on that I demand the yeas, and
nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

Th^ question was taken; and there
were—yeas 206, nays 115, not voting 111,

[Roll No. 20]

YEAS—206

Eberharter
Elliott
Ellsworth
Evil’s
Failon
Feighan
Fenton

2139

as follows;

So the previous question was ordered.
The Clerk announced the following
pairs:

Mr. Burton with Mr. Sadlak.

Mr. Dingell with Mr. Herter.

Mr. Keogh with Mr. Sheehan.

Mrs. Kee with Mr. Widnall.

Mr. Sasscer with Mr. Latham.

Mr. Addonizio with Mr. Taylor.

Mr. Murphy with Mr. Allen of Illinois.

Mr. Doyle with Mr. Bender.

Mr. Regan with Mr. Kean.

Mr. Heffernan with Mr. Halleck.

Mr. Kluczynski with Mr. Leonard W. Hall.
Mr. Chatham with Mr. Coudert.

Mr. Heller with Mr. Brown of Ohio.

Mr. Morrison with Mr. Weichel.

Mr. Mitchell with Mrs. Rogers of Massa¬
chusetts.

Mr. Walter with Mr. Osmers.

Mr. Sikes with Mr. Edwin Arthur Hall.

Mr. Hedrick with Mr. Werdel.

Mr. Battle with Mr. Horan.

Mr. Staggers with Mr. Gwinn.

Mr. Buckley with Mr. Gamble.

Mr. Fernandez with Mr. Case.

Mr. Welch with Mr. Merrow.

Mr. Magee with Mr. O’Konski.

Mr. McKinnon with Mr. Clevenger.

Mr. Celler with Mr. Brownson.

Mr. Delaney with Mr. Jackson of California.
Mr. Larcade with Mr. Judd.

Mr. Rivers with Mr. Simpson of Pennsyl¬
vania.

Mr. Dollinger with Mr. Short.

Mr. Roberts with Mr. Prouty.

Adair Donohue

Allen, Calif. Dprn

Anderson, Calif.Ea'
Andresen,

August H.

Anfuso
Angell
Arends
Armstrong
Aspinall

Auchincloss Fine

Ayres Fisher

Bailey Flood

Bakewell Fogarty

Baring / Forand

Barrett Ford

Bates, Ky. Fulton

Bates, Mass. Furcolo

Beall Garmatz

Beamer Gavin

Belcher George

Bennett, Fla. Goodwin

Bennett, Mich. Gordon

Bentsen Graham

Bishop

Blackney

Boggs, Del.

Bolling

Bolton

Bramblett

Bray

Budge

Burdick

Burnside

Busbey

Canfield

Carrigg

Chelf

Chenoweth

Chiperfield

Church

Clemente

Cole, N. Y.

Corbett

Cotton

Crosser

Crumpacker

Curtis, Mo.

Dague

Davis, Wis.

Dawson

Deane

Dempsey

Denny

Denton

Devereux

D’Ewart

Dondero

Granahan
Granger
Green
Greenwood
Hagen
Hale

King, Pa.

Kirwan

Klein

Lane

Lanham

Lesinski

Lind

Lyle

McCarthy

McConnell

McCormack

McCulloch

McDonough

McGregor

McGuire

McVey

Machrowicz

Mack, Ill.

Mack, Wash.

Madden

Mansfield

Martin, Mass.

Mason

Meader

Miller, Calif.

Miller, N. Y.

Morano

Morgan

Multer

Nicholson

Harrison, Wyo. O’Brien, HI.
Hart O’Hara

Havenner O'Neill

Hays, Ohio Ostertag

Heselton O’Toole

Hess Patman

Hinshaw Patterson

Hoffman, HI. Perkins

Holifield Philbin

Holmes Phillips

Howell Poage

Irving Polk

Jackson, Wash. Poulson
James Preston

Jenkins
Johnson
Jonas
Jones, Ala.

Karsten, Mo.

Kearney

Kearns
Keating
Kelley, Pa.
Kelly, N. Y.
Kerr
Kilburn
Kilday
King, Calif.

Price
Priest
Rabaut
Rankin
Reams
Reece, Tenn.
Reed, N. Y.
Rees, Kans.
Rhodes
Ribicoff
Rodino
Rogers, Colo.
Rooney
Ross

Bt. George

Smith, Kans.

Vorys

Baylor

Smith. Wis.

Vursell

Schenck

Springer

Wicker sham

Bcott,

Stlgler

Wier

Hugh D„ Jr.

Thompson,

WJgglesworth

Bcudder

Mich.

Wilson, Ind.

Becrest

Tollefson

Withrow

Seely-Brown

Trimble

Wolverton

Shelley

Vail

Yates

Sheppard

Van Pelt /

Yorty

Siemlnskl

Van Zandt

Zablockl

Simpson, Ill.

Velde 7

NAYS—115

Abbitt

Gathfnga

Norrell

Abernethy

Golden

Passman

. Albert

Core

Patten

Allen, La.

grant

Pickett

Andersen,

•Gregory

Redden

H. Carl

• Gross

Reed, HI.

Andrews

Hand

Riley

Baker

Hardy

Robeson

Barden

Harris

Rogers, Fla.

Beckworjth

Harrison, Nebr.

Rogers, Tex.

Berry

Harrison, Va.

Schwabe

Betts

Hubert

Scrivner

Boggs, La.
Bonner

Herlong

Shafer

Hill

Sittler

Bpsone

Hoeven

Smith, Miss.

Bow

Hoffman, Mich. Smith, Va.

VBrehm

Heard

Spence

Brooks

Jarman

Stanley

Brown, Ga.

Jenison

Steed

Bryson

Jensen

Taber

Euffett

Jones, Mo.

Talle

Burleson

Jones,

Teague

Bush

Hamilton C.

Thomas

Butler

Jones,

Thompson, Tex.

Byrnes

Woodrow W.

Thornberry

Carlyle

Lantaff

Vinson

Colmer

LeCompte

Watts

Cooper

Lovre

Wharton

Crawford

Lucas

Wheeler

Cunningham

Mclntire

Whitten

Curtis, Nebr.

McMiUan

Williams, Miss.

Davis, Ga.

McMullen

Williams, N. Y.

DeGraffenried

Mahon

Willis

Dolliver

Miller, Md.

Wilson, Tex.

Elston

Mills

Winstead

Engle

Morris

Wolcott

Forrester

Mumma

Wood, Idaho

Frazier

Murray, Tenn.

Woodruff

Fugate

Nelson

Gary

Norblad

NOT VOTING—111

Aandahl

Hall,

Murphy

Addonizio

Leonard W.

Murray, Wis.

Allen, HI.

Halleck

O'Brien, Mich.

Battle

Harden

O’Konski

Bender

Harvey

Osmers

Blatnik

Hays, Ark.

Potter

Boykin

Hedrick

Powell

Brown, Ohio

Heffernan

Prouty

Brownson

Heller

Radwan

Buchanan

Herter

Rains

Buckley

Hillings

Ramsay

Burton

Hope

Regan

Camp

Horan

Richards

Cannon

Hull

Riehlman

Carnahan

Hunter

Rivers

Case

Jackson, Calif.

Roberts

Celler

Chatham

Javits

Rogers, Mass.

Judd

Roosevelt

Chudoff

Kean

Sabath

Clevenger

Kee

Sadlak

Cole, Kans.

Kennedy

Sasscer

Combs .

Keogh

Scott, Hardle

Cooley

Kersten, Wis.

Sheehan

Coudert

Kluczynski

Short

Cox

Larcade

Sikes

Davis, Tenn.

Latham

Simpson, Pa.

Delaney

McGrath

Staggers

Dingell

McKinnon

Stockman

Dollinger

Magee

Sutton

Donovan

Marshall

Tackett

Doughton

Martin, Iowa

Taylor

Doyle

Merrow

Walter

Durham

Miller, Nebr.

Weichel

Fernandez

Mitchell

Welch

Gamble

Morrison

Werdel

Gwinn

Morton

Widnall

Hall,

Moulder

Wood, Ga.

So the resolution was agreed to.

The Clerk announced the following
pairs:

Mr. Burton with Mr. Herter.

Mr. Dingell with Mr. Brown of Ohio.

Mr. Keogh with Mr. Allen of Illinois.

Mrs. Kee with Mr. Sadlak.

Mr. Sasscer with Mr. Bender.

2140

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE

March 11

Mr. Addonizio with Mr. Coudert.

Mr. Murphy with Mr. Leonard W. Hall.

Mr. Doyle with Mrs. Harden.

Mr. Regan with Mr. Taylor.

Mr. Heffernan with Mr. Weichel.

Mr. Kluczynski with Mr. Widnall.

Mr. Chatham with Mr. Kean.

Mr. Heller with Mr. Judd.

Mr. Morrison with Mr. Latham.

Mr. Mitchell with Mr. Simpson of Penn¬
sylvania.

Mr. Walter with Mr. Short.

Mr. Sikes with Mr. Sheehan.

Mr. Hedrick with Mrs. Rogers of Massa¬
chusetts.

Mr. Battle with Mr. Radwan.

Mr. Staggers with Mr. Osmers.

Mr. Buckley with Mr. Martin of Iowa.

Mr. Fernandez with Mr. Case.

Mr. Welch with Mr. Gwinn.

Mr. Magee with Mr. Horan.

Mr. McKinnon with Mr. Kersten of Wis¬
consin. \

Mr. Celler with Mr. Riehlman.

Mr. Delaney with Mr. Clevenger.

Mr. Larcade with Mr. Brownson.

Mr. Rivers with Mr. Morton.

Mr. Dollinger with Mr. O’Konskl.

Mr. Roberts with Mr. Murray of Wisconsin.

Mr. Blatnik with Mr. Gamble.

Mr. Camp with Mr. Harvey.

Mr. Chudoff with Mr. Hillings.

Mr. Donovan with Mr. Werdel.

Mr. Powell with Mr. Prouty.

Mr. Roosevelt with Mr. Potter.

Mr. Sutton with Mr. Miller of Nebraska.

Mr. Kennedy with Mr. Merrow.

Mr. Cooley with Mr. Cole of Kansas.

Mr. Cox with Mr. Edwin Arthur Hall.

Mr. Davis of Tennessee with Mr. Hope.

Mr. Moulder with Mr. Jackson of California.

Mr. O’Brien of Michigan with Mr. Aandahl.

Mr. Rains with Mr. Hull.

Mr. Wood of Georgia with Mr. Stockman.

Mr. Secrest with Mr. Hardie Scott.

Mr. McGrath with Mr. Halleck.

Mr. Ikard changed his vote from "yea”
to “nay.”

The result of the vote was announced
as above recorded.

A motion to reconsider was laid on the
table.

GENERAL LEAVE TO EXTEND

Mr. MADDEN. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that all Members
may be allowed to extend their remarks
on the resolution just passed, and I also
ask unanimous consent that two letters,
one from one of the attorneys of the
Los Angeles Times, and one from a mem¬
ber of the Senate Press Gallery, Mr. Ste¬
phen L. Debalta, may be incorporated
in the Record immediately following my
remarks.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from In¬
diana?

There was no objection.

ELECTION TO COMMITTEE

Mr. DOUGHTON. Mr. Speaker, I
offer a resolution (H. Res. 562), and ask
for its immediate consideration.

The Clerk/ read the resolution, as
follows:

Resolved JT hat Earl Chudoff, of Pennsyl¬
vania, beyland he is hereby, elected a mem¬
ber of tye standing Committee of the House
of Renrfesentatives on Merchant Marine and
Fisheries.

The resolution was agreed to.

PREVENTING ILLEGAL ENTRY OF ALIENS

(Mr. McCORMACK asked and was
given permission to address the House
for 1 minute.)

Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Speaker, I
take this time to announce to the House
that the conference report on the bill
(S. 1851) to assist in preventing aliens
from entering or remaining in the
United States illegally, has been filed in
the House and will be called up Thurs¬
day next.

I make this announcement to give as
much advance notice as possible so the
Members will be advised and may gov¬
ern themselves accordingly.

CORRECTION OF ROLL CALL

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I am
recorded in yesterday’s Record as not
voting on roll call No. 18. I was present
and voted “nay.” I ask unanimous con¬
sent that the permanent Record and
Journal may be corrected accordingly.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Mon¬
tana. /

There was no objection.

TRANSFER OF RESPONSIBILITY ✓TOR

CONDUCTING CERTAIN PERSONNEL

INVESTIGATIONS

Mr. LYLE. Mr. Speaker, I call up
House Resolution 555, providing for the
consideration of S. 2077, a bill to provide
for certain investigations by the Civil
Service Commission in lieu of the Fed¬
eral Bureau of Investigation, and for
other purposes.

The Clerk read the resolution, as
follows:

/ \

Resolved, That Immediately upon the
adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order to move that the House resolve itself
into the Cojfimittee of the Whole House on
the State of the Union for the consideration
of the bill (S. 2077) to provide for certain
investigations by the Civil Service Commis¬
sion in lieu of the Federal Bureau of In¬
vestigation, and for other purposes. That
after general debate which shall be confined
to the bill and continue not to exceed 1 hour,
to be equally divided and controlled by the
chairman and ranking minority member of
the Committee on Post Office and Civil Serv¬
ice, the bill shall be read for amendment
under the 5-minute rule. At the conclusion
of the consideration of the bill for amend¬
ment, the Committee shall rise and report
the bill to the House with such amendments
as may have been adopted and the previous
question shall be considered as ordered on
the bill and amendments thereto to final
passage without intervening motion except
one motion to recommit.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from
Indiana is recognized for 1 hour.

Mr. LYLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield one-
half of my time, 30 minutes, to the
gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Ells¬
worth] and yield myself such time as I
may use.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from
Indiana is recognized.

Mr. LYLE. Mr. Speaker, the bill made
In order by this resolution is a Senate
bill, S. 2077. It provides that the Civil
Service Commission shall conduct the
original personnel investigations, in¬

vestigations that heretofore and pres¬
ently have been and are being made by
the FBI. Mr. Hoover, Director of the
FBI, has recommended this legislation.
However, if anything derogatory is un¬
covered the FBI will then take over the
investigation.

Thf bill provides further that the FBI
shall continue to check its files on finger¬
prints of all applicant'; further, that
when the Atomic Energy Commission,
the Mutual Security‘Administration, or
the State Department certifies certain
positions as having high sensitivity, then
the FBI will make a complete investiga¬
tion in all instances.

Mr. Speaker, so far as I know there
Is no opposition to this measure.

Mr. ELLSWORTH. Mr. Speaker, the
pending resolution makes in order con¬
sideration of the bill S. 2077.

I think it would be worth while at this
time to call the attention of the Mem¬
bers of the House to the fact, which was
considered by the Rules Committee in
bringing the bill to the floor for consid¬
eration, that the Director of the Fed¬
eral Bureau of Investigation, J. Edgar
Hoover, has advised us of his approval
of this legislation. He said in his state¬
ment to the committee that the trend
toward piling more minor investigation
work on the Bureau has been accelerated
during recent Congresses and the en¬
largement of the Bureau’s activities in
this respect has necessarily resulted in
a diversion of much of its energies and
facilities from the pursuit of its primary
responsibilities of detecting and appre¬
hending violators of Federal laws, dis¬
charging its assignments with respect to
espionage, sabotage, and subversive ac¬
tivities, and rendering such other vital
services as may be required of it by con¬
gressional and Executive directives.

It seemed to the Rules Committee that
It was quite in order for the Congress,
in light of the statement by the Director,
to have an opportunity to reconsider the
actions taken in the enactment of pre¬
vious laws and change our directive so
that the personnel investigations called
for in several acts may be transferred
to the Civil Service Commission. The
pending rule making in order the con¬
sideration of S. 2077 was therefore
brought to the floor.

Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Speaker, will
the gentleman yield?

Mr. ELLSWORTH. I yield to the gen¬
tleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. McCORMACK. The gentleman’s
statement in connection with Mr. Hoo¬
ver is absolutely correct. On several oc¬
casions one of his assistants has been up
to see me, Mr. Hoover having sent him,
urging the passage of legislation of this
type because it was taking up so much
time of the FBI that the work of their
special agents was being diverted from
the essential work of the FBI to investi¬
gations that could be taken care of else¬
where, as Mr. Hoover’s assistant said,
could be well taken care of by the Civil
Service Commission.

I have in my hand a letter addressed
to me, dated March 6, in relation to S.

1952

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE

2163

ity member, has taken the lead in put¬
ting the Hoover Commission recom¬
mendations into effect. We have se¬
cured legislative consideration of 37
Presidential reorganization plans of
which 28 have become law. In addition
to these plans, I have voted for 46 laws
to improve the efficiency of Government
operations. The Citizens’ Committee on
the Hoover Report has stated that over
55 percent of the 300 or more recom¬
mendations in the report have been put
into effect, leading to savings of over
$2,000,000,000 annually.

MAINTAINING A SOUND ECONOMY

Great domestic and international
problems during the past 10 years have
made necessary the building of our mili¬
tary strength and caused our taxes and
national debt to increase sharply. The
alternative during the years 1940 and
1945 would have been surender to Hitler
and since the end of the war, the alter¬
native would have been to surrender the
free world to communism. We could
not accept either of these alternatives
and retain the freedoms inherent in the
American way of life.

Our great job has been to meet these
totalitarian threats and at the same time
maintain a decent standard of living for
our people at home. We have, in the
main, succeeded. We defeated the Hitler
axis. We have stopped the growth of
communism in Europe and here at home.
We have maintained full employment.
We have increased greatly our produc¬
tion of consumer and military goods.
Some price inflation has occurred but
the standard of living, as expressed in
actual increased consumption of con¬
sumer goods, has improved. Corporate
net income and individual net income,
after taxes, is higher than it was in the
prewar years.

I shall continue to fight inflation of
prices and do all in my power to increase
the purchasing power of the consumer’s
dollar.

WATER, THE LIFEBLOOD OF CALIFORNIA

The one indispensable factor in the
continuing welfare of every citizen of
California is the maintenance of an ade- .
quate water supply. Our underground'
water supply level has lowered from ne*tr
the ground surface to a depth of several
hundred feet in the last few years, ' The
Hulholland Aqueduct from OwenaATalley
is totally inadequate and we ar^rnow de¬
pendent on water which pumped
through the Metropolitan Water Aque¬
duct from the Colorado Rtfer 475 miles
away.

During the past few years a dispute on
water rights has been bitterly waged be¬
tween California and Arizona, We be¬
lieve that legislation introduced by
Arizona and now/ending in the Congress
will jeopardize/California's claims to a
substantial amount of Colorado River
water.

Together with the other California
Congressfhen of both parties I am vigor¬
ously defending our water rights.

FLOOD CONTROL

The flash floods, such as those recently
suffered by many of our communities in
the Los Angeles watershed, are a con¬

tinuing threat to life and property. The
Nineteenth Congressional District in
particular is traversed by the Los
Angeles, Rio Hondo, and San Gabriel
Rivers. All of these rivers are important
diversion channels for flash-flood waters
which accumulate between the moun¬
tains and the ocean. In 1941 Congress
passed an enabling bill for $350,000,000
for southern California flood-control
projects. Actual appropriations of $120.,-
000,000 have been made of these Federal
funds, to aid the citizens of our com¬
munities in their fight against these dis¬
astrous floods.

I have appeared many times before the
Appropriations Committees of Congress
and testified in behalf of these appro¬
priations which are so necessary to pre¬
serve life and property.

TIDELANDS OIL FIGHT

The State of California for many years
has been receiving millions of dollars in
royalties from oil pools which lie off
shore and below the ocean waters ad¬
jacent to our coast line. The State of
California has used these funds for the
purchase of public beaches, parks, an£
recreational facilities for the people f of
California. The Federal Governipfent
has, in recent years, claimed rights to
these offshore oil deposits, claiming Fed¬
eral ownership of submerged lapels.

I have joined with other California
Congressmen in the fight to maintain
California’s right to these offshore oil
royalties.

INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT OF SOUTHERN
* CALIFORNIA

Our rapidly increasing population has
provided industrial workers and there¬
fore more consumers for industrial
products. Wartime defense expansion
on the Pacific coast gave impetus to our
industrial development. The location
of defense' industries and the allocation
of defeflse contracts have been a con¬
stant concern of California Congress¬
men/

I'have, together with my California
colleagues in Congress, vigorously fought
for the establishment of steel, alumi¬
num, shipbuilding, aircraft, rubber,
machine tool, and many other industrial
facilities in southern California. We
have also been successful in insisting
that large defense contracts be allocated
to the West instead of to eastern and
southern areas. This has helped im¬
measurably in the growth of our south¬
ern California industrial plant, and the
employment at good wages of thousands
of our citizens.

INTERNATIONAL PROBLEMS

During the past 10 years we have
fought and won World War n against
the totalitarian regimes of the extreme
right.

One of our allies in that fight against
the common foe was Soviet Russia.
When the war was over, the Soviets
joined with us in forming the United
Nations. We had every reason to be¬
lieve that all nations were tired of war
and would proceed to build a peaceful
world. Time and events have proven
that the Soviet Union was not sincere.
This totalitarian nation of the extreme

left has violated every principle of in*
ternational equity.

We are now faced with the aggressive
force of communism throughout the
world. We are fighting this ideology on
both the economic and the military
fronts. Our economic aid to free na¬
tions in Europe and Asia is for the pur¬
pose of strengthening their domestic
economies and building their military
strength. We are succeeding although
the task is difficult and progress some¬
times seems too slow,- As the free world
becomes stronger the danger of political
or military success of communism be¬
comes less.

The struggle of the 16 member na¬
tions of the United Nations against the
Chinese and North Korean Communists
may not be fully understood by many
Americans. It is essentially a struggle
to preserve the United Nations reason
for existence, that is, collective interna¬
tional action against aggression. Unless
the principle of collective action against
aggression is established firmly among
Aiations, we can never establish peace in
the world. It is the only chance to stop
Communist aggression. That is why we
are fighting in Korea.

I have voted for economic and mili¬
tary aid for our allies in the United Na¬
tions and I have supported our own mili¬
tary appropriations to make our own
Nation strong in the fight to preserve
our freedom and liberties.

GRAFT IN GOVERNMENT

Approximately 2,500,000 citizens are
Federal civilian employees. Of this
number a few hundred have betrayed
their trust and committed dishonest acts.
It is obviously unfair to charge that this
great body of Federal employees is cor¬
rupt and dishonest. There is absolutely
no excuse for dishonesty in government
or anywhere else. Betrayal of public
trust is reprehensible and should be ex¬
posed and punished immediately.

My own Committee on Expenditures in
the Executive Departments has continu¬
ously investigated Government agencies
and exposed inefficiency and dishonesty.
We recently secured House of Represent¬
atives approval of the President’s Re¬
organization Plan No. 1 of 1952. to re¬
organize the Bureau of Internal Revenue
abolishing the political offices of collec¬
tors of internal revenue and replacing
them with civil-service employees. We
believe that this change will relieve the
collectors of political pressures and in¬
sure a more responsible and honest ad¬
ministration of our tax-collection
agency.

EXTENSION OP REMARKS

By unanimous consent, permission to
extend remarks in the Appendix of the
Record, or to revise and extend remarks,
was granted to :

Mr. Fallon (at the request of Mr.
Priest) and to include a statement. •

Mr. Morano in two instances and to
include editorials in each instance.

Mr. Busbey and to include a letter
received by him from a minister regard¬
ing taxes.

Mr. Armstrong and include a brief ar¬
ticle by the president of Boeing Aircraft
Go.

2164 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE March 11

Mr. Hoeven and include an article
from the February issue of the Farm
Journal.

Mr. Cole of New York and include a
short editorial.

Mr. Crawford and include a brief sum¬
mary of the new Puerto Rican Constitu¬
tion prepared by the Governor of Puerto
Rico.

Mrs. Sx. George and include a news¬
paper article.

Mr. Hoffman of Michigan and include
a newspaper article.

Mr. Mansfield and include a speech
by Secretary Chapman in honor of the
Honorable Mike Kirwan.

Mr. Patman and include a statement
at the end of today’s business concern¬
ing the Small Business Plants Adminis¬
tration appropriation which will come
up tomorrow.

Mr. Bryson and include a radio tran¬
script.

Mr. McDonough and to include ex¬
traneous matter.

Mr. King of California (at the re¬
quest of Mr. Lyle) and to include a
newspaper article.

Mr. Philbin and to include a recent
speech.

Mr. Hebert and to include an article.

Mr. Brooks in two instances and to in¬
clude extraneous matter.

Mr. Granger and to include an edi¬
torial.

Mr. Lesinski.

Mr. Bennett of Florida and to include
extraneous matter.

Mr. Shelley and to include two items
of extraneous matter.

Mr. Boggs of Louisiana in three in¬
stances and to include extraneous mat¬
ter.

Mr. Miller of New York in three in¬
stances and to include two resolutions
and an editorial.

Mr. Hoffman of Illinois (at the re¬
quest of Mr. Martin of Massachusetts).

Mr. Reece of Tennessee and to include
an editorial from the Wall Street
Journal.

Mr. Steed and to include a magazine
article.

SENATE ENROLLED BILLS SIGNED

The SPEAKER announced his signa¬
ture to enrolled bills of the Senate of the
following titles:

S. 664. An act to amend section 4 of the
act of May 5, 1870, as amended and codified,
entitled “An act to provide for the creation
of corporations in the District of Columbia
by general law,” and for other purposes; and

S. 1345. An act to amend acts relating to
fees payable to the clerk of the United States
District Court for the District of Columbia,
and for other purposes.

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

By unanimous consent leave of ab¬
sence was granted to:

Mr. Lantaff, for 4 days, on account
of committee business.

Mr. Greenwood (at the request of
Mrs. Kelly of New York), for an indef¬
inite period, on account of death in
family.

Mr. Addonizio (at the request of Mr.
Howell) , for the week of March 10,1952,
on account of official business.

Mr. Doyle, indefinitely, on account of
committee business.

AD J OURNMENT

Mr. ELLIOTT. Mr. Speaker, I move
that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly
(at 5 o’clock and 38 minutes p. m.) the
House adjourned until tomorrow,
Wednesday, March 12,1952, at 12 o’clock
noon.

EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS, ETC.

Under clause 2 of rule XXTV, execu¬
tive communications were taken from
the Speaker’s table and referred as
follows:

1238. A letter from the Assistant Secre¬
tary of Defense, transmitting a draft of a
proposed bill entitled “A bill to equalize cer¬
tain benefits between and among members
of the Armed Forces of the United States,
and for other purposes”; to the Committee
on Armed Services.

1239. A letter from the Secretary of the
Navy, transmitting a report of a proposed
transfer of an experimental drydock to the
Junior Midshipmen of America under au¬
thority of section 1 of the act of August 7,
1946 (60 Stat. 897; 34 U. S. C. 546f), pursuant
to section 6 of the act of August 7, 1946 (60
Stat. 898; 34 U. S. C. 546k); to the Commit¬
tee on Armed Services.

1240. A letter from the Secretary of State,
transmitting the fourth report regarding" the
Yugoslav emergency relief assistance pro¬
gram, pursuant to section 6 of Public Law
897 (the Yugoslav Emergency Relief Assist¬
ance Act of 1950), for the period from Sep¬
tember 15, 1951, through December 15, 1951
(H. Doc. No. 392); to the Committee on For¬
eign Affairs, and ordered to be printed.

1241. A letter from the Acting Attorney
General, transmitting, a letter relative to the
case of Tan Yap Eng or Tan Eng, file No.
A-9537742 CR 34140, requesting that it be
withdrawn from those now pending before
the Congress and returned to the jurisdic¬
tion of the Department of Justice; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.

REPORTS OF COMMITTEES ON PUBLIC
BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS

Under clause 2 of rule XIII, reports
of committees were delivered to the
Clerk for printing and reference to the
proper calendar, as follows:

Mr. CELLER: Committee of conference.
S. 1851. An act to assist in preventing aliens
from entering or remaining in the United
States illegally (Rept. No. 1505). Ordered to
he printed. __

Mr. LANE: Committee on the Judiciary.
H. R. 3098. A bill to amend sections 1331
and 1332 of title 28, United States Code, re¬
lating to amount in controversy; without
amendment (Rept. No. 1506). Referred to
the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union.

Mr. BENTSEN; Committee on Interior and
Insular Affairs. H. R. • 3166. A bill to
amend the act approved June 14, 1926 (44
Stat. 741; 43 U. S. C., sec. 869), entitled “An
act to authorize acquisition or use of public
lands by States, counties, or municipalities
for recreational purposes,” to include other
public purposes and to permit nonprofit or¬
ganizations to lease public lands for certain
purposes; with amendment (Rept. No. 1509).
Referred to the Committee of the Whole
House on the State of the Union.

Mr. MORRIS: Committee on Interior and
Insular Affairs. H. R. 5577. A bill to de¬
clare that the United States holds certain
lands in trust for the Stockbridge-Munsee
Community, Inc., of the State of Wisconsin;
with amendment (Rept. No. 1510). Re¬
ferred to the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union.

REPORTS OF COMMITTEES ON PRIVATE
BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS

Under clause 2 of rule XIII, reports of
committees were delivered to the Clerk
for printing and reference to the proper
calendar, as follows:

Mr. HART; Committee on Merchant Ma¬
rine and Fisheries. House Joint Resolution
363. Joint resolution to provide for the
presentation of the Merchant Marine Dis¬
tinguished Service Medal to Henrik Kurt
Carlsen, master, steamship Flying Enter¬
prise-, without amendment (Rept. No. 1507).
Referred to the Committee of the Whole
House.

Mr. MORRIS: Committee on Interior and
Insular Affairs. H. R. 4678. A bill author¬
izing the Secretary of the Interior to issue
a patent in fee to Jack Bravo; without
amendment (Rept. No. 1508). Referred to
the Committee of the Whole House.

PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS

Under clause 3 of rule XXII, public
bills and resolutions were introduced and
severally referred as follows:

By Mr. BEALL:

H. R. 6984. A bill to grant foster children
dependency status for Federal income-tax
purposes; to the Committee on Ways and
Means.

By Mr. BURLESON:

H. R. 6985. A bill to amend section 402 (f)
of the Defense Production Act of 1950; to
the Committee on Banking and Currency.

By Mr. CELLER:

H. R. 6986. A bill to amend the act entitled
“An act to supplement existing laws against
unlawful restraints and monopolies, and for
other purposes,” approved October 15, 1914,
and to amend the act entitled “An act to
protect trade and commerce against unlawful
restraints and monopolies,” approved July 2,
1890, for the purpose of prohibiting loss
leader sales; to the Committee on the Judi¬
ciary.

By Mr. DONOHUE:

H. R. 6987. A bill to provide for the award
of certain public contracts to bidders from
areas of very substantial labor surplus where
their bids do not exceed by more than 5
percent the most advantageous bids sub¬
mitted from other areas; to the Committee
on the Judiciary.

By Mr. HAGEN:

H. R. 6988. A bill to provide an extension
of time for claiming refund or credit of
overpayments of income tax with respect to
sales of livestock; to the Committee on Ways
and Means.

By Mr. HOLIFIELD:

H. R. 6989. A bill to amend the act of May
31, 1940, entitled “An act to provide for a
more permanent tenure for persons carrying
the mail on star routes,” so as to require the
inclusion of certain stipulations in contracts
for carrying the mails by motor vehicle; to
the Committee on Post Office and Civil
Service.

By Mr. KLEIN:

H. R. 6990. A bill to provide for the issu¬
ance of a special postage stamp in honor of
Dr. Elizabeth Blackwell; to the Committee on
Post Office and Civil Service.

By Mr. LESINSKI:

H. R. 6991. A bill to amend section 1310 of
the Supplemental Appropriation Act, 1952;
to the Committee on Post Office and Civil
Service.

By Mr. MITCHELL:

H. R. 6992. A bill to require the payment of
prevailing wage rates to employees of con¬
tractors under contracts with the Post Office
Department for transportation of mail by
motor vehicle; to the Committee on Post
Office and Civil Service.

By Mr. MORRISON:

H. R. 6993. A bill to provide that the Post¬
master General shall furnish flat-top stools

j OF INTEREST TO THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

_..._^a,cJ Issued March 14,1952

OFFICE OF BUDGET AND FINANCE For actions of March 1.3,1952

(For Department Staff Only) 82nd-2nd, ITo• 4l

CONTENTS

Adjournment ......... ..7 Forest lands *...13 Property management«... 3

A ppropriations«.l,S,30,32»3S Forests.25 Prices.35*36

CCC storage.......«17 Housing.. ......27 Reclamation.*26,30

Daylight saving tine..24 Immigration.15 Reorganization .........12

Economic report,.l 6 Irrigation...l4 Resale.price

Egg and poultry prices....35 Legislative program. 3 maintenance ........*36

Electric power.... ....19 Livestock production.31 Rubber. 4

Electrif ication,.. *... 29 Military training.37 Soil conservation..... 6,9

Expenditures..........IS Minerals..*25 Tobacco marketing

Farm bankruptcy..10 Monopolies...5 quotas...*...,35

Farm labor. 2 llomiiiat ion. 11 TVA... 6

Foreign aid*... ......6,21,23 Personnel.......1,22,39 Vegetables.. .23

Foreign aid appropriations. 3S Pork prices........20 Water utilization.....»j4

HIGHLIGHTS: Both Houses agreed to conference report on wetback-entry bill. Ready
for President, blouse passed 3rd supplemental appropriation bill. Reduced pay items
10/0 * Modified Whitten rider. House committee ordered reported bills to amend G-3 a
A ct and give GSA control over Government vehicles and furniture* Senate confirmed
nomination of Ess - f n to be Production Credit Commissioner,

HOUSE

)

Passed with amendments this bi

SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATION SILL, 1952.
jJXjk 6947 (up. 2317-36).

•eed, l4l-5S, to an amendment by Rem- Davis, Ga*, to reduce b^-'^'TO )o the
amounts "c?a^ried in the bill for Pay Act costs except that those the Post
Office Depar't«ient were reduced by only 1 $ (pp« 2323-9> 233°)*^'-

Agreed to ai^amendment by Ren* Whitten, Miss,, to amifi the so-called
Whitten personne l i*4^er as follows: Providing that agency may promote any

employee permanently position if such promotion will not increase the

number of snploj^ees hoi dimmer: mnent position^fn the grade of such position in
such agency above the number 'isq. such grade >« such agency prior to September 1,
1950: Provided further, That permanent pyfcotions may be made to any position
in a category for which the Civil SSNlfce Commission authorizes permanent
appointments under the terms hereof." Algo amendment - of the limitations on the
rapidity of promotions so tha^^Tiey do not Hsgply to a person mao "is eligible
for appointment, in accor^nce with a regular anointment system or procedure
established prior to Jj^tfteraber 1 , 1950* to a highe'r-^racle position outside the
competitive civil pelrvic e" or to a person "being advah^ed to a grade level not
exceeding that £efr which he had previously established eligibility as required
by the term§y"Kereof: Provided further, That, net with standing' tje provisions
hereof ,s*m in order to avoid undue hardship or inequity, the. Ci'vil Service
Comm^iion, when requested by the heed of the agency involved, may 'bs&thorize
pjpemotions in individual cases cf meritorious nature," (pp« 2329“ 35*5

Agreed to an amendment by Rep* Meader, Mich., to provide that "No parV^xf
any appropriation contained in this act shall be used for publicity or

-2—

pr opagand a purposes not heretofore authorized "by the Congress" (p 0 2335)® /

Agreed, 152-70, to an amendment "by. Hep. Fogarty, R* Io, (previously, Agreed
to in Committee of the Whole), t<~> restore the estimate of $8259000 for jme
Snai l Defense Plants Admin is tration (p, 2336)V

Rejected, 115-127, an amendment by Hep. Fogarty to set up a $10 t 000 c 000
revolving fond for this agency (pp<> 2317 ~ 27 )o /

2o FARM LAEORo Both Houses agreed to the conference report on S» 1851, to assist in
preventing aliens from .entering or remainirg in the U. S 9 illegally ^pp. 2303»
2314-6) „ This Dill will nov; he sent to the President* ■

PROPERTY MANAGEMENT c The. Expenditures in the Executive Departments Commit teo
voted' to reoort (hut did not actually report) with amendments H* R* U 92 U, to
authorize GSA to establish and operate motor-vehicle pools and systems and
provide Office furniture.and furnishings when agencies are moved to new locations*
to direct the Administrator to report the unauthoriz-ed’use of (Government motor

vehicles, etc 0 ; and H, R. .535°’ amending the Federal Property and Administrative

Services Act of I 9 U 9 Cp* D20&').*

4, RUBBER* The'Armed Servic. os/Committee reported without- aaendmait H„ R* 67879 to

extend the Rubber Act of.19

MONOPOLIES, The Judi d any Cor
the Sherman Anti-Trust Act of

uni

Rent <3 1513 ) (p® 2344),

tee reported with amendment H. R, 6525 .* to amend

(H. Repte 1516) (p 0 2344)*

6 , SOU CONSERVATION? FOREIGN AID; TVA.\ Rep* Hoffman, Mich®* claimed PMA committee-
men encourage farmers to take soil-c 8 snservation payment s when the farmers are
not interested, and criticized the foreign-aid program and the TVA 5 s method of
awardirg 00 nt racts, (pp. 2335* 233?~4o)

7 , ADJOURNED until Mon., Mar* 17 (p» 2344).

tee

was authorized to file a report
.any time until midnight tonights
on the floor of the House.

Se LEO IS LATH’S PROGRAM. The Appropriations ConmT
on the independent offices am-pro-riation bill
'and it was announced that t her bill will be take

'next Wed. Rep. Cannon saidf "Wo expect to dispose^ of the bill next week, and
we exoe,ct to dispose of t wo additional appropriation bills the following week®"
Majority Whip Priest announced that the consent calebdar will be considered Mon

Tries. ’ Regarding the time of>a congressional adjourn-
-s my 'roue-and feeling that certainly we can finish by
on going along as well. as we haveV 1 (pp® 23369 233^®)

and the private cal end.
ment, he said: "...it
early duly, if we

kej

9 . AGRICULTURAL CONSERVATION PROGRAII. The; Agriculture and Forestry Committee repet-
ed with amendment S. 2569 , to'amend the Soil Conservation and finestic Allots
nent Act to j^rovide for a 2 year continuation of this program (S.\ Rept, 1305)

(p, 22b0) .

10. FARM BANKRUPTCY. The Judiciary Committee reported with amendment S. 25, to pre
vide a /farm bankruptcy title for the Bankruptcy Act (S, Rept'. 1303) (p ; * 22o0)<

11. NOMINATION, Confirmed the nomination of Arthur T. Esgate to be Production-,Gree t
Commissioner- (p. 2313)*

12. REORGANISATION, Rejected, 27 to 53* S. Res. 285» which would have disapproved
Reorganization Plan No. 1, 1952} relating to the Bureau of Internal Revenue

1952

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE

2303

H mpetence. Their second and also
iling was a devotion to political
irhich transcended their loyalty to
le service and caused them to en-
itty and sometimes criminal ma-
s. In these they were encouraged
;ted by the complacency and in-
amerence of an inept top administration in
Washington.

Mr. President, there is the crux of the

in those in high
ot only encouraged it
it, according to Rep-
o said he supports

corruption. It
places who have
but have protected
resentative King,
the plan.

Senators who clairt^ that the plan
would remove politics from the machin¬
ery of tax collection are making a grave
mistake indeed. They are crucifying
the little collector whose nonHnation the
Senate has the authority to confirm. If
we approve the plan we would Dte, taking
the political power away from ourselves,
away from the control of this constitu¬
tional body, and concentrating it in the

disapproval of plan No. 1 submitted by
the President.

Therefore, Senators who favor the
President’s reorganization plan will vote
“nay” on the resolution; and Senators
who are opposed to the reorganization
plan will vote “yea” on the resolution.

The yeas and nays have not been
ordered.

Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, I
ask for the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered, and
the legislative clerk called the roll.

Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. I announce
that the Senator from Connecticut [Mr.
Benton] is absent on official business,
acting as chairman of the Subcommittee
on Taxation of the Senate Small Busi- ;
ness Committee in connection with the
opening of hearings' today at Bridge¬
port, Conn. On this vote the Senator
from Connecticut is paired with the Sen¬
ator from North Dakota [Mr. Young]. ■
If present and voting, the Senator from
Connecticut would vote “nay,” and the
Senator from North Dakota would vote

higher echelon of what he terms “inept”
management to which and which hK
says has protected and encouraged it by \ , . _,, ,

**/«i-itvir>'icw’onrMr ariri inHifTprpni’p” top will The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr.

Kerr] is absent on official business.

Mr. SALTONSTALL. I announce that
the Senator from New Hampshire [Mr.
Bridges], the Senator from Indiana [Mr.
Jenner], and the Senator from Ohio [Mr.
Taft] are. necessarily absent.

The Senator from North Dakota [Mr.
Young] is absent by leave of the Senate.

On this vote the Senator from North
Dakota [Mr. YquNG] is paired with the
Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Benton],
If present and voting-the Senator from
North Dakota would, vote “yea,” and the
Senator from Connecticut would vote
“nay.” / \

The yeas and,hays resulted as follows:

YEAS—37

"complacency and indifference” we will
not clean up corruption b y do ing that.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
time of the Senator from Arkansas has
expired.

Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, I
suggest that the Senate vote.

Mr. McCLELLAN. That is satisfac¬
tory to me. I yield back the remainder
of my time.

Mr. HUMPHREY. I yield back the re¬
mainder of my time.

The VICE PRESIDENT. All time for
debate has expired.

Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, I
suggest the absence of a quorum.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The Secre¬
tary will call the roll.

The legislative clerk called the roll,
and the following Senators answered to
their names:

Hayden
Hendrickson
Hennings
Hickenlooper
Hill
Hoey
Holland
Humphrey
Hunt
Ives

Johnson, Colo.

Johnson, Tex.

Johnston, S. C. Robertso:
Kefauver Russell
Salto:

Schoj
Se;

Sufathers
tilth, Maine
Smith, N. J.
Smith, N. C.
Sparkman
Stennis
Thye
Tobey
Underwood
Watkins
Welker
Wiley
Williams

RESIDENT. A quorum is

Aiken

Anderson

Bennett

Brewster

Bricker

Butler, Md.

Butler, Nebr.

Byrd

Cain

Capehart

Carlson

Case

Chavez

Clements

Connally

Cordon

Dlrksen

Douglas

Duff

Dworshak

Eastland

Ecton

Ellender

Ferguson

Flanders

Frear

Fulbright

George

Gillette

Green

Aiken

Anderson

Brewster

Bricker

Butler, Md.

Byrd

Clements

Connally

Dirksen

Douglas

Duff

Ferguson

Frear

Gillette

Green

Hendrickson

Hennings

Hill

Fulbright
George
Hayden
Hickenlooper
Hoey
Holland
Johnson, Colo.

Johnston, S. C. Smith, N. C.

Murray

Neely

O'Conor

O’Mahoney

Pastore

Robertson

Saltonstall

Seaton

Smathers

Smith, Maine

Smith, N. J.

Sparkman

Thye

Tobey

Underwood

Wiley

Williams

NAYS—53

Humphrey

Hunt

Ives

Johnson, Tex.

Kefauver

Kem

Kilgore

Knowland

Langer

Lehman

Lodge

Magnuson

Malone

McFarland

McMahon

Monroney

Moody

Morse

The VICI
present.

The question is on the adoption of Sen¬
ate Resolution 285.

Tlje Chair will state that resolutions
on Reorganization plans create somewhat
of a reverse situation, in that in the pres¬
ent case the resolution is a resolution of

NOT VOTING—6
Benton Jenner Taft

Bridges Kerr Young

The VICE PRESIDENT. On this vote
the yeas are 37 and the nays are 53.

Under the law, a majority of all Sena*
tors eleoted and sworn in must vote foj
the resolution of disapproval in order
that it may carry*

Therefore the resolution of disapproval
is disagreed to; and Reorganization Plan
No. 1 of 1952 goes into effect at 12:01
a. m. on the morning of March 15.
PREVENTION OF ILLEGAL ENTRY OF
ALIENS—CONFERENCE REPORT

Mr. KILGORE. Mr. President, I sub¬
mit a report of the committee of confer¬
ence on the disagreeing votes of the two
Houses on the amendments of the House
to the bill (S. 1851) to assist in prevent¬
ing aliens from entering or remaining in
the United States illegally. I ask unani¬
mous consent for the immediate con¬
sideration of the report.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The report
will be read for the information of the
Senate.

The legislative clerk read the report,
as follows:

The committee of conference on the dis¬
agreeing votes of the two Houses on the
amendments of the House to the bill (S.
1851) entitled “An act to assist in preventing
aliens from entering or remaining in the
United States illegally,” having met, after
full and free conference, have agreed to
recommend and do recommend to their re¬
spective Houses as follows:

That the Senate recede from its disagree¬
ment to the amendment of the House num¬
bered 1.

That the Senate recede from its disagree¬
ment to the amendment of the House num¬
bered 2, and agree to the same with an
amendment as follows:

In lieu of the matter proposed to be in¬
serted by the House amendment insert the
following:

On page 3, beginning on line 10 and end¬
ing on line 23, strike out paragraph (c).

And the House agree to the same.

Harley M. Kilgore,

James O. Eastland,

Warren G. Magnuson,

Homer Ferguson,

William E. Jenner,

Managers on the Part of the Senate.
Emanuel Celler,

Francis E. Walter,

Louis E. Graham,

Managers on the Part of the House.

The VICE PRESIDENT. Is there ob¬
jection to the present consideration of
the report?

There being no objection, the report
was considered and agreed to.

MUTUAL SECURITY PROGRAM

Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. President, by di¬
rection of the Senate Committee on
Armed Services, I desire to make a brief
announcement.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator
from Georgia is recognized.

Mr. RUSSELL. Heretofore in the con¬
sideration of the mutual security pro¬
gram, particularly that portion of the
program dealing with military assist¬
ance, the Senate Committee on Foreign
Relations and the Committee on Armed
Services, sitting jointly, have proceeded
to consider the matter, under a unan¬
imous-consent agreement obtained in
the Senate.

There is, of course, ample room for
argument and controversy as to proper
jurisdiction over legislation of that char¬
acter. The Armed Services Committee
had never raised any issue as to its right
to consider that measure, because of the
fact that arrangements had been worked
out for hearings by the two committees,

2304

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE

March 13

sitting jointly. As proof of the thin line
of demarcation between the jurisdiction
of the two committees, it may be pointed
out that, last year, the Vice President re¬
ferred the message relative to this sub¬
ject to the Senate Committee on Armed
Services.',

The Senate Committee on Armed Serv¬
ices has no desire to interfere with the
operations of the Senate Committee on
Foreign Relations, but in view of the
fact that no agreement has been reached
this year for consideration of the bill
by the two committees, sitting jointly,
I wish to serve notice on the Senate
that, when the Senate Committee on
Foreign Relations shall have reported
the bill to this body , the Senate Commit¬
tee on Armed Services will request a di¬
rective by the Senate to examine the
bill.

The members of the Senate Committee
on Armed Services, if I may state the
case briefly, feel that such a request is
justified in view of the fact that more
than 85 percent of the funds which are
authorized in that proposed legislation
relate to the procurement of military
equipment, and to the distribution of the
military equipment which is produced in
this country, and its division between
that which goes to the Armed Services of
the United States and that which goes
to our various associates and allies.

I shall not discuss the question at
length. I merely wish to apprise the
Senate of the fact that the Senate Com¬
mittee on Armed Services will respect¬
fully request the Senate for a directive
that that committee examine this pro¬
posed legislation when it is reported by
the Senate Committee on Foreign Rela¬
tions.

Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?

Mr. RUSSELL. I yield.

Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, I
think the able Senator from Georgia, the
chairman of the Armed Services Com¬
mittee, has made a very important and
significant statement, and he has done
so acting on behalf of the full Armed
Services Committee.

I desire merely to add that, as the Sen¬
ator from Georgia has pointed out, more
than 85 percent of the program deals
directly with the National Defense Es¬
tablishment, particularly the disposition
of excess or nonexcess military equip¬
ment, which has a direct effect upon the
armed services of the United States.
That is a matter which is clearly within
the jurisdiction of the Armed Services
Committee; and I believe that if ar¬
rangements are not made to have hear¬
ings by the two committees, sitting joint¬
ly, there is an obligation upon the Armed
Services Committee' and the Senate to
see to it that the bill is rereferred to the
Armed Services Committee for its con¬
sideration.

Mr. RUSSELL. I thank the Senator.

Mr. CONNALLY and Mr. ELLENDER
addressed the Chair.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The Sena¬
tor from Texas.

Mr. CONNALLY. Mr. President, I
have listened with interest to the re¬
marks of the Senator from Georgia and
the Senator from California, who are

members of the Armed Services Com¬
mittee. It is the attitude of the Senate
Committee on Foreign Relations that
this measure was referred to that com¬
mittee; and, inasmuch as it was referred
to that committee, we expect to do our
duty in connection with it. What the
Senate may do after we submit our re¬
port will be up to the Senate. But I re¬
mind Senators that this is a matter af¬
fecting foreign relations, if there ever
was one. It deals only with matters af¬
fecting foreign relations, and it is pend¬
ing before the Committee on Foreign
Relations. After the committee shall
have completed its consideration and
efforts, if the Senate then wants to re¬
refer the bill to the Committee on Armed
Services, that will be the business of the
Senate.

Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield? ■

Mr. CONNALLY. I yield.

Mr. KNOWLAND. Does not the Sen¬
ator agree that when the previous legis¬
lation was before the Senate, it was re¬
ferred to the Committee on Foreign Re-/
lations and the Committee on Armed
Services, sitting jointly?

Mr. CONNALLY. I may say that was
done, with our consent. We were willing
to do it.

Mr. KNOWLAND. Are we to under¬
stand that the Senator is withholding
his consent,at this time?

Mr. CONNALLY. No consent is called
for at this time. The Senator from
Georgia did not request any- consent;
and I thought he was the chairman of
the committee, not the Senator from
California.

Mr. KNOWLAND. \merely wanted to
clear the record by ascertaining whether
the Senator from Texas was objecting
to this bill being considered by the two
committees, sitting jointly, as has been
done in the past.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The Chair
will state for the information of the
Senate that the previous bill was, by
unanimous consent, referred to both
committees. No such consent was re¬
quested in this case, and the Chair reV
ferred the measure to the Committee on
Foreign Relations, because that is the
committee to which it should have been
referred, if only one committee were to
consider it.

Mr. CONNALLY. I should like to re¬
ply to the Senator from California that
there is no unanimous-consent request
before the Senate. Of course I have not
objected when there was no request. If
the Senator would listen and pay atten¬
tion to his duties, he would know that
without my having to tell him.

Mr. McFARLAND. Mr. President,
Will the Senator from Texas yield to me?

Mr. CONNALLY. I yield.

Mr. McFARLAND. Mr. President, I
realize, of course, that the bill has been
referred to the Foreign Relations Com¬
mittee. Ordinarily, I do not believe it is
advisable to have a bill considered by two
committees. I think the committee
which has the major interest should be
the committee to consider proposed leg¬
islation. However, this bill involves
questions in which both committees are
Intensely interested. A part of it relates

to the defense of the United States, and
naturally the Armed Services Commit¬
tee would ordinarily have jurisdiction of
that feature. I suggested last year that
the bill then before the Senate be divided
so that it could be considered by the
Armed Services Committee and the For¬
eign Relations Committee.

Under the circumstances, since we are
trying to make progress and to get
through as early as possible, I hope the
chairmen of the two committees will get
together and try to .work the matter out
so that each committee will not have to
go over the same evidence.

Mr. CONNALLY. The Senator is
“laying down,” on me.

Mr. McFARLAND. I would not say
I am “layjhg down” on anyone. I am
trying tq expedite the business of the
Senate/

Mr, CONNALLY. Mr. President, the
bill has been referred to the Committee
on-Foreign Relations, and so long as it is
before that committee we shall do our
duty by it. On two previous occasions
our committee agreed with the Commit¬
tee on Ai^ned Services that the latter
committee might have subsequent juris¬
diction of a bill after we had acted upon
it; and we have invited that committee to
sit with us daring the hearings. They
were present today, and they will be
there tomorrow if they want to come.
They have been invited.

There is no question now pending, and
I do not at this time want to make any
agreement about voting in the Foreign
Relations Committee by members of the
Committee on Armed Services. If the
question comes up later, it will be up to
the Senate.

The VICE PRESIDENT. Under the
rules of the Senate, the Chair can refer a
bill to only one committee, no matter
what the bill may be. When a bill has
been referred to two committees it has to
be by unanimous consent. I think all
Senators understand that.

Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. President, I
merely wish to point out to the Senate
that when the first measure providing
for military assistance to our allies and
associates overesas was sent to Congress
.the question of the jurisdiction over the
bill was discussed between the chairman
of the Senate Committee on Armed Serv¬
ices, and the chairman of the Senate
Committee on Foreign Relations. The
Senator from Texas, as a result of the
discussions, requested unanimous consent
that the bill be considered jointly by
those two committees.

When the second bill providing for the
implementation of the military program,
along with economic aid, came before the
Senate, a similar course was followed.
Over the years the percentage of funds
which are devoted wholly and exclusively
to military assistance as compared with
funds which may be for economic assist¬
ance has increased, and the percentage
this year going to military assistance is
higher than it was in the last session.

Of course, Mr. President, I shall not
ask unanimous consent that the two
committees sit together. It would be far
from my purpose to have the Armed
Services Committee seek to intrude into
another committee where it is not wel-

1952

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE

2313

wnber 23, 1949, that his offer of $205,000 had
befen accepted, subject to certain terms and
conditions, including manner of payments,
clearance, jy the Department of Justice, and
right of entry and assumption of custody of
the facility a^sof 12:01 a. m. on October 1,
1949. An amendment was made to the
offer of acceptanc&-\changing the date of
assumption of custodjL of the facility to
October 22, 1949, which ahdiendment was ac¬
cepted by Jack Motley, president, Baton
Rouge Warehouse Co., Inc.

5. Rentals: At the time the W&f Assets
Administration disposed of the Facility
rentals were being received in. the surtKuf
$1,264 per month from private enterprise
There was also a charge of $3 per railroad
car for switching which amount was not
converted to the Government but rather to
the railroad companies.

6. Representative of the Government: The
sale of this facility was conducted by Karl
E. Wallace, regional director, War Assets Ad¬
ministration, who now holds the position
of regional director, General Services Ad¬
ministration, Dallas, Tex.

7. Purpose of construction of facility: The
files reflect that the facility was declared
surplus by the Corps of Engineers on June
5, 1947, and that its prior use had been an
engineering depot and backup storage center
for the New Orleans Port of Embarkation.

8. Leasing or repurchase of the facility by
the Government: Our records reflect no-In¬
formation relating to any current interest
of the Department of the Army in>tfis site.

9. Storage of Commodity Cpddit Corpora¬
tion commodities: Records of this admin¬
istration do not reflect arrangements for
storage contracts fo ythe Commodity Credit
Corporation durmg^the period that GSA, or
its predecessofe'war Assets Administration,
had custody'iSf this property.

It is suggested that you may wish to get
in tpffch with the Commodity Credit Cor-
ration for a report concerning any storage

contracts which may have been executed at
this site.

Sincerely yours,

Jess Larson 1 .

EXECUTIVE SESSION

Mr. McFARLAND. Mr. President, I
move that the Senate proceed to the
consideration of executive business.

The motion was agreed to; and the
Senate proceeded to the consideration of
executive business.

EXECUTIVE REPORTS OF COMMITTEES

The following reports of nominations
,were submitted:

Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina, frotn
the Committee on Post Office and. Civil
Services.^

Sundry'postmasters; favorably.

By Mr. JOHNSTON of South.Carolina, from
the Committee bn the District of Columbia:

Earl Wayne Becky of Missouri, to be Re¬
corder of Deeds, District of Columbia, vice
Marshall L. ShepardT resigned; adversely.

The PRESUMING OFFICER (Mr. Hol¬
land in tbd"'chair). If there be no fur¬
ther reports of committees, the clerk will
state the nominations on the Executive
Calendar.

FARM CREDIT ADMINISTRATION

The legislative clerk read the nomi¬
nation of Arthur T. Esgate to be Pro¬
duction Credit Commissioner of the
Farm Credit Administration.

Mr. McFARLAND. Mr. President, I
have known Arthur Esgate for 33 years.
He was formerly cashier of the Valley
National Bank in Arizona, and was rec¬
ognized as an outstanding banker in
my State.

He has for the past several years
worked for the Farm Credit Adminis¬
tration, and has earned this promotion.

He is a man of integrity and ability. It
is with pleasure that I move the con¬
firmation of his nomination to be Pro¬
duction Credit Commissioner of the
Farm Credit Administration.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, the nomination is confirmed,
and the Presidpm will be immediately
notified.

DIPLOMATIC AND FOREIGN SERVICE

The-*legislative clerk read the nomi¬
nation of George F. Kennan to be Am¬
bassador Extraordinary and Plenipoten¬
tiary of the United States of America to
the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, the nomination is confirmed,
and the President will be notified forth¬
with.

RECESS

Mr. McFARLAND. As in executive
session, I move that the Senate stand
in recess until 12 o’clock noon tomorrow.

The motion was agreed to; and (at 6
o’clock and 2 minutes p. m.) the Senate
took a recess until tomorrow, Friday,
March 14, 1952, at 12 o’clock meridian.

CONFIRMATIONS

Executive nominations confirmed by
the Senate March 13 (legislative day
February 25), 1952:

Farm Credit Administration
Arthur T. Esgate, of Arizona, to be Pro¬
duction Credit Commissioner of the Farm
Credit Administration.

Diplomatic and Foreign Service
George F. Kennan, of Pennsylvania, to be
Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipoten¬
tiary of the United States of America to the
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

House of Representatives

The House met at 12 o’clock noon.

The Chaplain, Rev. Bernard Braskamp,

D. D., offered the following prayer:

O Thou Eternal Presence, as we pray
together, we would thank Thee for the
gift of a new day, challenging us to lay
hold of those ideals and principles which
invest life with dignity and worth.

Inspire usvwith a more vivid and satis¬
fying sense of the great divine realities
and resources 'as we face the many op¬
portunities thdt beckon us to heroic
endeavor and noble service.

We humbly cohfess that we are so
slow to see that our human life has no
standards and stability, no defense
against despair and defeat, no bulwarks
against communism and chaos unless
we cultivate faith in Thee and in the
moral and spiritual values.

Grant that during this day we may
yield ourselves to the spirit of our
blessed Lord whose mind is wiser than
our own, whose strength is invincible,
and whose peace will keep us calm and
courageous.

Hear us in His name. Amen.

THE JOURNAL

The Journal of the proceedings of yes¬
terday was read and approved.

ALIENS ENTERING OR REMAINING IN THE
UNITED STATES ILLEGALLY

Mr. CELLER. Mr. Speaker, I call up
the conference report on the bill (S.
1851) to assist in preventing aliens from
entering or remaining in the United
States illegally, and ask unanimous con¬
sent that the statement of the managers
on the part of the House be read in lieu
of the report.

The Clerk read the title of the bill.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from New
York?

There was no objection.

The Clerk read the statement.

(For conference report and statement,
see proceedings of the House of March
11, 1952.)

Mr. CELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield
such time as he may desire to the gen¬
tleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. WalterL

Mr. WALTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask
your indulgence for a moment not to
discuss this conference report but to
permit me to draw the attention of the
House to the propaganda drive that is
being engaged in now by certain mem¬
bers of the American Jewish Congress
opposed to the Immigration and Na¬
tionality Code. This code, as you know,
was set down on the program for con¬
sideration by the House for today and
tomorrow.

I say “propaganda drive” advisedly,
because the attacks made on this code
are without foundation. Some time ago
a Dr. Israel Goldstein, president of the

Thursday, March 13,1952

American Jewish Congress, made a
speech in New York in which he at¬
tacked this measure. Because of the re¬
porting of his speech I wrote a letter to
the editor of the New York Times and I
should like to read it to you, because I
am sure that after you have heard the
explanation I make you will be thor¬
oughly convinced that this Immigration
and Naturalization Code is a progressive
measure designed to protect first, the
interests of the United States, and sec¬
ond, the law-abiding alien who desires
to live among us. In my letter of Feb¬
ruary 20 I stated:

Dear Mr. Editor: Permit me to express my
astonishment at the revoltingly misleading
statements attributed to Dr. Israel Gold¬
stein, president of the American Jewish Con¬
gress, by the New York Times on February
20, 1952, regarding the new Immigration and.
Nationality Code proposed in my bill, H. R.
5678, pending before the House of Repre¬
sentatives.

It is hard to believe that the president of
the American Jewish Congress would see fit
to present to the members of his own na¬
tional executive committee such a com¬
pletely false picture of this important legis¬
lation.

There is not a scintilla of truth to the
statement that my bill places “a legislative
seal of inferority on all persons of other
than Anglo-Saxon origin and would result in
millions of naturalized Americans having to
live in permanent fear of deportation or loss
of citizenship for the most trivial and
frivolous of reasons.”

The equality of all races, the final repeal
of all racial discrimination now contained
in our immigration and naturalization laws,
as well as the repeal of all discrimination
based on sex, nationality, etc., are the basic
features of my bill. At no point would my
measure provide for the deportation of a
United States citizen, native-born or nat¬
uralized.

Every legal authority consulted on my
bill—and over 60 witnesses testified before
a joint House-Senate committee—agrees
that it represents a vast improvement over
the existing law and Jurisprudence regard¬
ing the availability to an alien of fair admin¬
istrative and judicial practices and pro¬
cedures.

Similarly, the provisions of my bill per¬
mitting the admission of reformed totali-
tarians and subversives have been unani¬
mously recognized as one of the most laud¬
able features of H. R. 5678.

I do not feel, Mr. Editor, that I am entitled
to taking up more of your valuable space.
I could go on nailing down more of the
untrue statements made by Dr. Goldstein,
however, I prefer to refer him to the bill
itself and to the accompanying report (No.
1365), which explains my measure on 328
printed pages.

This much, however, I want to stress for
the benefit of the members of the American
Jewish Congress who might have been misled
by the statements attributed to their pres¬
ident. The only categories of aliens who,
under my bill, will find it more difficult to
remain in our midst will be the criminals,
the narcotic peddlers, and the subversives

(incidentally, as recommended by the Ke-
fauver committee). If Dr. Goldstein, as re¬
ported by the New York Times, dislikes the
provisions providing better protection for
the citizens of this country, I would refrain
from discussing this matter with him.

Sincerely yours,

Francis E. Walter,
Member of Congress, Chairman,

Mr. JAVITS. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?

Mr. WALTER. I yield.

Mr. JAVITS. I had a wire this morn¬
ing from Dr. Walter Van Kirk who is a
distinguished church leader stating that
this bill, in his opinion, badly needed
amendment. My recollection is, and I
had no idea that this would be discussed
this morning, but I have a similar wire
either from the Lutheran or Methodist
Church organization. Also I would like
to ask the gentleman whether he does
not agree that there are at least two
major changes in this law far more sub¬
stantive than the gentleman has men¬
tioned; one of which puts a quota limi¬
tation of 100 on Negroes coming from
the British colonies in the Caribbean, a
change in existing law; and the other
one uses 50 percent of the quota for peo¬
ple with special skills—which is a very
great change in the existing quota law.

Mr. WALTER. Of course, I would
like to call the gentleman’s attention to
the fact that this is the principle of using
50 percent of the quota for people needed
in the United States. But, if that entire
50 percent is not used in that category,
then the unused numbers go down to
the next category which replies to the
objections that these Jewish organiza¬
tions make much of, that families are
being separated. That very provision
will make it possible for people to re¬
unite their families.

To answer the rest of the gentleman’s
question so far as the representations
made by other religious groups are con¬
cerned, I am well familiar with them.
They are interested in finding a way to
take care of the 7,000 Lithuanians, Lat¬
vians, other Balts, and a certain number
of Poles whose names were in the pipe¬
line at the end of the displaced-persons
program, but to whom visas could not be
issued because of the intervening expira¬
tion date of the law. They feel that per¬
haps somehow, having been misled as
they have been, that situation can be
dealt with in this code. I believe that
this is a matter which should be consid¬
ered in separate legislation, being en¬
tirely unrelated to the permanent code.

Mr. JAVITS. I have no doubt we will
have a chance to debate the bill, but the
only point I had in mind was to point
out to the House that this opposition is
not confined to the one group, which
the gentleman mentioned, and that there

2314

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE 2315

March 13, 1952

are other very important substantive
parts of the bill.

Mr. WALTER. I might call your at¬
tention to the fact that Mr. Harry N.
Rosenfield, Commissioner of the Dis¬
placed Persons Commission and inci¬
dentally a brother-in-law of a lawyer
who is stirring up all this agitation, in a
speech recently said:

The proposed legislation is America’s Nu¬
remberg trial.

It is “racious” and archaic, based on the
theory that people with different styles of
noses should be treated differently.

I say that is a most unfair statement
to make, and designed to arouse the sort
of feelings that we ought not to know in
America.

Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. The gen¬
tleman referred to propaganda that was
being put out against the bill. Were you
referring to these releases which have
been coming in to Members of the House
from some seven or eight different or¬
ganizations?

Mr. WALTER. Yes. I have a clip¬
ping from the Associated Press here; 13
religious, civic, and veterans’ organiza¬
tions are opposing the omnibus immigra¬
tion bill on the ground that it would tear
down precious rights of American citi¬
zens. The group said in a letter to House
Members that the measure had not been
given adequate hearings.

In the same mail that brought that
article to me comes the People’s Voice,
which, incidentally, is a Communist pub¬
lication, in which they describe me as
“the possessor of an outstanding anti¬
labor record.” The article referring to
the immigration bill goes on to say:
“Despite lengthy hearings.” These or¬
ganizations, according to the Associated
Press, protest that there were not ade¬
quate hearings, and this Communist
sheet talks about the lengthy hearings.

The fact of the matter is that this
legislation was under consideration for
nearly 3 years. A joint subcommittee
of the Senate and House heard 56 wit¬
nesses and received 78 statements. Al¬
most all of the testimony that we heard
was truly constructive. Some of it was
critical of certain parts of the three bills
pending before the joint subcommittee.
Some of it was outright laudatory.

Upon the conclusion of the hearings,
the members and the staff of the Senate
and House subcommittees went very
carefully over the entire testimony and
abstracted from it concrete suggestions
for the purpose of drafting amendments.
More than 300 amendments were then
considered in a lengthy series of con¬
ferences lasting from June until October
1951. A great number of amendments
were then incorporated in the bills S.
2550 and H. R. 5678, the latter having
been further amended in the Committee
on the Judiciary. I can hardly think
of more painstaking study and consid¬
eration being accorded any legislative
measure.

During the hearings, there were only
two statements made which were entirely
hostile to the whole bill. One by the
American Jewish Congress and the other
by the representative of the Associa¬
tion of Immigration and Nationality

Lawyers, represented by an attorney who
is also advising and counseling the Amer¬
ican Jewish Congress. He is not inter¬
ested in legislation. He is interested in
litigation.

Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. And
fees.

Mr. WALTER. And fees.

Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. Will the
gentleman yield further?

Mr. WALTER. I yield.

Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. I do
not know why you are disturbed about
this propaganda, because every Mem¬
ber of the House knows you have always
been a friend of organized labor, and
you have devoted a lot of time and abil¬
ity to drafting this bill and holding
hearings. What I wanted to ask you
about is this: Why did we not get this
bill yesterday? Is that postponement
to help these fellows?

Mr. WALTER. I do not think it was
because I was in Detroit and therefore
unable to object to the request that it go
over, but the bill was set down for today
and tomorrow.

Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. I would
have been glad to object for you had I
known you wanted to do so.

Mr. WALTER. I was too busy expos¬
ing the Communist conspiracy in the
gentleman’s State of Michigan. I could
not be here.

Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. I would
like to give you a couple of photographs
that were put in the Federal court, nam¬
ing some of these 600 at Briggs, as Com¬
munists.

Mr. WALTER. As a matter of fact,
one of the editors of this sheet, the Peo¬
ple’s Voice, was one of the witnesses be¬
fore our committee.

Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. You do
not refer to our distinguished State sen¬
ator up there, do you?

Mr. WALTER. Yes; of course, I do.

Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. He said
that he would not answer whether he
was a Communist?

Mr. WALTER. Yes.

Mr. JENKINS. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?

Mr. WALTER. I yield to the gentle¬
man from Ohio.

Mr. JENKINS. I do not think the gen¬
tleman need to worry about what any¬
body might say about him.

Mr. WALTER. The only thing I am
disturbed about is this: I spent the en¬
tire morning answering the telephone,
and I thought that by making a brief
statement here I would be saved the ne¬
cessity of sitting close to my phone for
the balance of the day.

H. R. 5678 is the outgrowth of over
4 years of studies, investigations, confer¬
ences with various departments of the
administration and extensive hearings.
It is a codification and revision of all
immigration and nationality lav/s, never
previously attempted. The extensive
and searching report on the bill is House
Report No. 1365.

It makes these basic changes in our
immigration, nationality, and naturali¬
zation laws:

' First. The bill eliminates all racial
bars to immigration for naturalization.

Regardless of what some critics of the
bill say, at no point would the eligibility
of any person to come to the United
States and to become an American citi¬
zen depend on this person’s race. There
are only numerical limitations imposed
on immigrants, and their ability to meet
certain economic, security, and health
standards.

Second. The bill eliminates all dis¬
crimination between the sexes with re¬
spect to immigration and naturaliza¬
tion.

Third. The bill introduces a system
of selective immigration by giving spe¬
cial preference to skilled persons whose
services are urgently needed in this
country.

Fourth. Taking due cognizance of the
existence of a world-wide Communist
conspiracy, hostile to the United States
and to the free world, the bill strength¬
ens requirements for security screening
and makes it possible both to prevent
the entry of Communist conspirators
and to weed out those who have in¬
filtrated into our midst.

Fifth. Taking notice of the shocking
percentage of aliens in the recently in¬
vestigated activities of the criminal ele¬
ment, the bill broadens the grounds for
exclusion and deportation of criminals,
violators of the narcotic prohibitions,
stowaways, and deserting seamen.

Sixth. It tends to curtail certain lax
practices that have developed through
the years in the adjustment of the im¬
migration status of aliens who have
entered this country illegally or who
are subject to deportation after entry.
In this and many other respects the bill
favors the law-abiding alien who de¬
sires to come to the United States when
permitted to do so by the law. But it
certainly does not favor—as some of its
critics would apparently prefer—the
alien who sneaks in in violation of the
law, gets his status adjusted, and takes
the place of his countryman who has
been patiently awaiting outside for
many years for an opportunity to enter
the “promised land.”

Seventh. The bill continues the exist¬
ing quota system and the determination
of the annual quota for natives of each
quota area is based on the United States
census of 1920. The Bureau of the
Census has been requested by the com¬
mittee to submit as soon as possible an
analysis of the 1940 and 1950 censuses
for possible future revision of the 1920
basis. However, that will take over a
year to obtain the necessary analysis
and, therefore, the 1920 basis should not
be altered at the present time.

Eighth. As a consequence of the re¬
peal of racial bars, and taking, into con¬
sideration recent political changes which
have occurred in the world, 12 new quota
areas will be established as follows:
Burma, Cambodia, Ceylon, Indonesia,
Korea, Laos, Libya, Pakistan, Somali¬
land, Vietnam, Yemen, and the Asia-
Pacific triangle.

Each of those 12 quota areas would
receive a quota of 100 annually. The new
quota for Japan will be 185.

The net result of a mathematical for¬
mula establishin; annual quotas, and of

No. 41-

2316

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE

March 13

the creation of 12 new quota areas, would
be that the total annual quota of 154,277
would be increased to 154,657.

Within this quota system, based on
the principle of national origin, the bill
provides both for selective immigration
and for the safeguarding of our old
principle of keeping families united.

Ninth. The bill provides a fully suffi¬
cient protection for American labor but
at the same time, it has several provi¬
sions permitting' the admission of for¬
eign workers temporarily if their serv¬
ices are urgently needed in certain areas.
It is sincerely hoped that these provi¬
sions will at last permit us to arrive at
an equitable and sensible solution of the
troublesome problem of Mexican farm
labor.

The bill makes fewer changes with re¬
spect to nationality and naturalization
than immigration because of the more
recent revision of the nationality code in
1940.

First. The bill eliminates race as a
bar to naturalization, thus making all
lawful permanent residents of the
United States who can meet the quali¬
fications, specifically those relating to
their good moral character and loyalty,
eligible to become American citizens.

Second. The bill lowers the minimum
age for filing a petition for naturaliza¬
tion from 20 to 18 years. It makes the
so-called first papers optional and not
a prerequisite to naturalization as the
present law requires.

Third. It retains the 5-year residence
requirement for naturalization but it re¬
quires only 3 years of such residence in
the case of the spouse of an American
citizen.

Fourth. The provisions relating to the
loss of citizenship remain basically the
same.

Mr. JENKINS. If that helps you any,
we are glad you have done it, but I rose
to bring out this proposition: When¬
ever you discuss the matter of reuniting
families, that is an old provision in the
immigration law, and it has been a fine
provision to allow families to reunite
themselves by being placed at the head
of the quota. That is a fine provision
and it is an old provision.

Mr. WALTER. Yes. And we have
extended it to include brothers and sis¬
ters of American citizens.

Miss THOMPSON of Michigan. Mr.
Speaker, with the gentleman yield?

Mr. WALTER. I yield to the gentle¬
woman from Michigan.

Miss THOMPSON of Michigan. I
have been a member of the Judiciary
Committee, Subcommittee No. 1, for a
very short time.

During that time we have had before
us this bill that has been presented here.
I have not had time to go through the
bill as thoroughly as I expect to, but I
do want to say that our chairman, the
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr.
Walter], has been one of the most hard¬
working and one of the most conscienti¬
ous gentlemen it has been my privilege
to know, and I feel that he merits the
confidence and respect of every Member
of this great House of Representatives.

Mr. CULLER. Mr. Speaker, we are
considering this morning, of course, the

conference report on the wetback bill.
We have been diverted considerably, but
having heard the statement made by the
gentleman from Pennsylvania I cannot
refrain from answering him. I have
great respect for the gentleman from
Pennsylvania. He has done a splendid
job in fashioning this Immigration and
Naturalization Code. That code which
will be presented to us in my estimation
marks a major advance in immigration
and naturalization legislation. But in
turn it has numerous faults. It contains
numerous disparities and discrimina¬
tions. It is not perfect: it can be per¬
fected. It can be bettered, and I propose
to offer certain amendments to the bill
when it comes before the House to im¬
prove it, to liberalize it, to remove con¬
siderable of the injustice now resident
therein. The gentleman spoke unto-
wardly when he harshly criticizes those
who in turn criticize his bill. He might
well be more tolerant.

I think it is a bit unfortunate that the
gentleman from Pennsylvania might
have been carried far away in his enthu¬
siasm for his bill and his resentment
against criticism. He should not have
overemphasized as he did the people of
one particular faith who are opposing the
bill.

Mr. WALTER. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?

Mr. CELLER. I yield.

Mr. WALTER. That is only one
group; there are other very fine Jewish
groups who endorse the bill.

Mr. CELLER. That is correct, and I
was going to mention that. So that in
that group itself there are some who may
agree with the bill and some who may
disagree with the bill. Sharp objections
to the bill are not limited to the Ameri¬
can Jewish Congress, a very creditable
organization, and other racial and re¬
ligious fronts. I received, for example,
an important communication this morn¬
ing from the executive director of the
National Lutheran Council which reads
as follows:

New York, N. Y., March 12, 1952.
Hon. Emanuel Celler,

House of Representatives,

United States Congress,

Washington, D. C.:

Please consider the serious restrictions
now incorporated into pending omnibus
codifications of immigration legislation.
There are increased restrictions on those ap¬
plying for entry and hazards of deportation
are increased so that average potential immi¬
grants are severely penalized. Such restric¬
tions do not offer protection from subver¬
sives, but rather create an isolationist immi¬
gration policy for United States. The 154,000
quota numbers available annually are so dis¬
tributed that approximately half are not
used. We urge formula whereby unused
quota numbers are made available for refu¬
gees’ relatives and needed workers and also
to cancel current mortgaged quotas.

Paul C. Empie,
Executive Director,
National Lutheran Council.

This is a sample of communications
objecting to that provision in the bill. I
have received from various and diverse
religious organizations, similar commu¬
nications of protests. The Federal Coun¬
cil of the Churches of Christ in America,
object to provisions of the bill; there

are similar protests from other organi¬
zations representing labor, notably the
CIO.

I happen to know intimately well Dr.
Israel Goldstein, eminent divine in New
York, and the rabbi of one of the oldest
congregations in America. He is an
erudite scholar and a distinguished and
patriotic citizen and divine. I think he
has a right to voice his objections; but
because he expresses his objections and
voices that, which to the gentleman
from Pennsylvania, might be unortho¬
dox, does not lessen, in my book, his
stature as a rabbi and an American.
We should encourage freedom to ex¬
press opinion whether for or against that
which we espouse. I think some of the
rabbi’s objections are untenable, but
that does not indicate that he has not
the right to object. Much of what Rabbi
Goldstein says is sound and well taken.
Frankly, let us have more people like
Rabbi Israel Goldstein who courageous¬
ly a"hd forthrightly take a position on
the all-important subjects of immigra¬
tion and naturalization. Frankly there
has been to much apathy and disinter¬
est generally on these subjects.

Mr. JAVTTS. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?

Mr. CELLER. I yield.

Mr. JAVITS. I hope very much when
we come to debate this bill that spirited
advocacy and spirited opposition will
not in any way be considered a criticism
of the gentleman from Pennsylvania
[Mr. Walter] or anybody else. I would
like to say that my respect for the gen¬
tleman from Pennsylvania equals that
of anyone in this House. I have seen
him in action on the displaced persons
legislation and in connection with the
Brussels Conference which was recently
held. I have met him at home and
abroad, and I think he is very seriously
working toward the objectives which he
considers most sincerely to be highly
desirable. I hope very much because of
some of the things that have been said
here and the letters which the gentle¬
man from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walter]
read, that the debate when it occurs will
be on a high level.

Mr. CELLER. I yield to no one in my
regard of the gentleman from Pennsyl¬
vania. We have worked together for
almost two decades, we have worked
ardently and faithfully on measures like
immigration and others—all for the wel¬
fare of this country.

The SPEAKER. The question is on
the conference report.

The conference report was agreed to.

A motion to reconsider was laid on
the table.

REPORT ON H. R. 6925

Mr. CELLER. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that the Committee
on the Judiciary may have until mid¬
night tonight to file a report on the bill
H. R. 6925.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from New
York?

There was np-objection*.

ORDERS GRANTED

Mr. I 0NDERO. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unaniifi us consent that the special

Public Law 283 - 82d Congress
Chapter 108 - 2d Session
S. 1851

AN ACT

All 66 Stat. 26.

To assist in preventing aliens from entering or remaining in the United States

illegally.

Be it enacted, by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled , That section 8 of the
Immigration Act of 1917 (39 Stat. 880; 8 U. S. C. 144), is hereby
amended to read:

‘‘Sec. 8. (a) Any person, including the owner, operator, pilot, mas¬
ter, commanding officer, agent, or consignee of any means of trans¬
portation who—

“ (1) brings into or lands in the United States, by any means of
transportation or otherwise, or attempts, by himself or through
another, to bring into or land in the United States, by any means
of transportation or otherwise;

“(2) knowing that he is in the United States in violation of
law, and knowing or having reasonable grounds to believe that
his last entry into the United States occurred less than three years
prior thereto, transports, or moves, or attempts to transport or
move, within the United States by means of transportation or
otherwise, in furtherance of such violation of law;

“(3) willfully or knowingly conceals, harbors, or shields from
detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection,
in any place, including any building or any means or trans¬
portation; or

“(4) willfully or knowingly encourages or induces, or attempts
to encourage or induce, either directly or indirectly, the entry
into the United States of any alien, including an alien seaman,
not duly admitted by an immigration officer or not lawfully
entitled to enter or reside within the United States under the
terms of this Act or any other law relating to the immigration or
expulsion of aliens, shall be guilty of a felony, and upon con¬
viction thereof shall be punished by a fine not exceeding $2,000
or by imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, or both,
for each alien in respect to whom any violation of this subsection
occurs: Provided , however , That for the purposes of this section,
employment (including the usual and normal practices incident
to employment ) shall not be deemed to constitute harboring.

“(b) No officer or person shall have authority to make any arrest
for a violation of any provision of this section except officers and
employees of the United States Immigration and Naturalization
Service designated by the Attorney General, either individually or as
a member of a class, and all other officers whose duty it is to enforce
criminal laws.”

Sec. 2. The last proviso to the paragraph headed “Bureau of Immi¬
gration” in title IV of the Act of February 27, 1925 (43 Stat. 1049;
8 U. S. C. 110), as amended by the Act of August 7, 1946 (60 Stat.
865), is hereby further amended so that clause numbered (2) shall
read:

Immigration
Aot of 1917,
amendment.
Prevention of
illegal entry
of aliens, eto.

Penalty.

Authority to
make arrests.

Pub. Law 283 - 2 -

All 66 Stat. 26.

Searoh of “(2) within a reasonable distance from any external boundary

vessels, etc. of the United States, to board and search for aliens any vessel
within the territorial waters of the United States and any rail¬
way car, aircraft, conveyance, or vehicle, and within a distance of
twenty-five miles from any such external boundary to have access
to private lands, but not dwellings, for the purpose of patrolling
the border to prevent the illegal entry of aliens into the United
States, and”.

Approved March 20, 1952.

6P0.S3-2«#53